How to Brief a Case - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Verified
Added on 2023/05/31
|6
|733
|209
AI Summary
This article explains how to brief a case using the example of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. It covers the facts, issues, decision, reasoning, and separate opinions of the case.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: HOW TO BRIEF A CASE How to brief a case Name of the Student Name of the University Author Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1HOW TO BRIEF A CASE Table of Contents Title and Citation.............................................................................................................................2 Facts of the Case..............................................................................................................................2 Issues................................................................................................................................................2 Decision...........................................................................................................................................3 Reasoning........................................................................................................................................3 Separate Opinions............................................................................................................................3 Analysis...........................................................................................................................................4
2HOW TO BRIEF A CASE Title and Citation Title:Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Citation: [1892] EWCA Civil 1 Facts of the Case According to theCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[1892] EWCA Civ 1 the defendant, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co manufactured a Carbolic Smoke Ball and claimed in its advertisement that the smoke ball prevents its users from Influenza. The company put up the advertisement in several newspapers in London, stating that anyone who contracts influenza after the smoke ball for a given time would be awarded£100 as a compensation. The company further declared that it has deposited the award money at a local bank to prove its seriousness. The plaintiff, Carlill purchased the smoke ball and used it for the given time exactly as per the instruction given by the company. Hence, Carlill sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball co in order to get the compensation money where the trial court granted it. In this regard, the company filed for an appeal pointing out the following issues discussed below. Issues The issue of this case was to determine whether there was any binding contract between the parties and whether the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff. As per the common law of contract, a valid agreement involves notice of acceptance. Therefore, it was to be determined whether Mrs. Carlill notified the defendant of her acceptance of the offer. It was also
3HOW TO BRIEF A CASE needed to be ascertained whether Mrs. Carlill paid consideration for the offered reward of£100 (Turner, 2014). Decision The court of appeal rejected the company’s appeal unanimously and held that the parties have a binding contract between themselves and the company was liable to pay£100 to the plaintiff. Reasoning Lindley LJheld that the advertisement was an express promise made by the company, which makes the parties binding to the agreement. The ad was not an invitation to treat. The ad is not vague that it cannot be taken for a promise. While the judge held that notification of acceptance was required as, the offer was a continuing offer and therefore it need not precede the performance. As for the consideration, the company made profit with the sale of the product on the first place, which makes it a valid consideration. Bowen LJandSmith LJdelivered similar reasoning in accordance with the decision of Lindley LJ. They pointed out that the offer was not too vague to be considered as a promise. They conformed to the decision of Lindley LJ regarding his reasoning about consideration. However, they deviated from the decision of Lindley LJ in terms of the notification of acceptance. They held that notification of acceptance was redundant.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4HOW TO BRIEF A CASE Separate Opinions There was no such dissenting judgment to this case; however, Lindley LJ gave a separate notion for notification of acceptance, which requires the plaintiff to give a proper notification of acceptance as it was a continuing offer and so it need not precede the performance. Analysis The case stands for the principle which states that if an offer has been given openly to the world at large, and if it expressly does not require a notification of performance, then in that case the performance of the contract would constitute the notification of acceptance of offer itself.
5HOW TO BRIEF A CASE References: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company[1892] EWCA Civ 1 Turner, C. (2014).Key Cases: Contract Law. Routledge. Bibliography: How to brief a case | Lloyd Sealy Library at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/how-to/brief-a-case