Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co & Minor's Capacity to Contract
Verified
Added on 2023/06/05
|6
|1351
|212
AI Summary
This article discusses the landmark case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co and the capacity of minors to contract. It covers the issues, relevant laws, and application of the case. It also discusses the enforceability of contracts made with minors.
2 Question 1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] EWCA Civ 1 As pre the facts, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball'. The ball are manufactured to avoid influenza is consumed. As per the advertisement any person who uses the smoke balls 3 times daily for 2 weeks and still consumes influenza, cold or similar diseases, then, the company is will pay 100 pounds . The 1000 pounds were deposited by the company with the alliance bank showing the sincerity of the company. Mrs Carlill used the balls as directed but suffered flu and she claimed the reward from the company. The company denied the claim. (Clark 2013) (1)Was the advertisement a mere ‘puff’ or sales talk? The court held that the advertisement is not a puff. The puffiness of the advertisement is negated from the fact that the company has deposited 1000 pound with the Alliance bank to show its seriousness. The deposit is an aid which is provided by the advertiser as a proof that they will abide by the promise so made. Thus, there is no inference that a promise is made, rather, a promise is actually made by the company. (2)Can an offer be made to the whole world? As submitted by Lord Justice Bowen, that the advertisement made by the company was not a puff because a promise was made by the company to be comply with when they deposited 100 0pound with the Alliance Bank to show its sincerity. He submitted that the offer was made to the world at large but a contract is not made with the entire world and the contract is only made with such persons who comply with the terms of the contract. Thus, an offer can be made to the world but a contract exists only with that person who performs upon the offer. The court of Appeal held that the advertisement made by the company was not a unilateral offer that is made to the entire world but the offer was limited to its extend to those persons who act upon the terms of the advertisement (3)Must acceptance or an intention to accept an offer be communicated? It was held byLord Justice Lindley that the communication of the acceptance is not required when the conduct and acts of the people relying on the offer manifest an
3 intention to formulate the contract. The compliance of conduct is considered to be deem acceptance with no requirement of communication. (4)Can performance of a condition in an offer constitute sufficient acceptance of that offer? Lord Justice Bowen submitted that as per the ordinary rule of law, an acceptance is considered to be valid and complete only when the same is communicated to the offeror and must reach the knowledge of the offeror by the offeree. But, when an offer is made specifying a particular mode of acceptance then the compliance of such mode of acceptance by the offeree is regarded as an acceptance in law resulting in binding contractual relationship amid the parties. The ruling of the leading cases ofIn re Imperial Land Company of Marseilles, ex parteHarris(1872)andBrogden v Metropolitan Railway(1877) are applied and the court held that the performance of a condition in a contract constitutes a valid acceptance in law resulting in a binding contract. (5)Was the contract made when the offeree did the act requested? The Court of Appeal held that a valid contract is made amid Mrs Carlill and the Smoke Ball Company when MrsCarlillhas actedas per the directionsspecifiedin the advertisement. The court considered the advertisement as a unilateral offer which was accepted by Mrs Carlill by complying with the requirements of mentioned in the advertisement/offer. (6)Was the advertisement too vague to form the basis of a contract? As perLord Justice Bowen, the advertisement was not too vague so that the same cannot be enforced in law. He held that the advertisement can be interpreted reasonably as what normal prudent people will think in the given situation.The court also rejected the contention that the promise that was made by the company was too wide and that there is no limit which was imposed wherein the person can suffer from the epidemic. The court lay down three limits, that is,first,catching of the epidemic still in the process of complying with the terms;second,catching of the epidemic when using the balls;third after the expiry of 2 weeks that was mentioned in the advertisement. The court submitted that in all the three situations, a sufficient time limit is provided and thus it does not result in making the contract to vague. (7)Can you think of a way to word this advertisement that would change the outcome of the case?
4 If the company has not mentioned that they have deposited 1000 pounds with the Alliance Bank to show their generosity and that if they do not specified the mode in which the balls to be used, then, there are caches that the advertisement is not considered as an offer. Question 2 Issue Can the repairer enforce the contract against Tanya when she turns 18? Relevant Law A person is considered to be minor when he has nit attained the age of 18 years. Generally, the contracts that are made with the minor are not enforceable in law except: (Clark 2013) i.When the contracts are made by the minor for his necessity – such contracts are binding in nature. the necessity of the minor depends upon the lifestyle that is taken by the minor and the thing required to maintain his living and is held in Nash v Inman[1908] ii.Beneficial contracts of employment – if an employment contract is made which is beneficial to the minor then such are valid contrast but the minor must repudiate the contract on attaining majority. If the party to the contract wants to enforce the contract against minor, then, the minor must repudiate the contract on attaining majority. Application Tanya is 17 years old. She took her CD player to the local repair shop to be fixed. Now Tans does not pay to the shop keep. It is submitted that Tanya was minor when the contract was made. The contract was neither for her necessity nor for her beneficial employment. Thus, the contract is not valid and cannot be enforced by the repairer.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
5 Conclusion Thus, the repairer cannot sue Tanya for the enforceability of the contract unless Tanya rectifies the contract on attaining the age of 18 years.
6 Reference List Case Laws Brogden v Metropolitan Railway(1877) 2 App. Cas. 666 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co[1892] EWCA Civ 1; In re Imperial Land Company of Marseilles, ex parteHarris(1872)Law Rep.7 Ch. App.587; Nash v Inman[1908] 2 KB 1 Online Material Clark,J2013,AustralianContractLaw, <https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/carlill.html>. Clark,J2013,Capacity,<https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation- capacity.html#minors>.