MPA106 Business and Corporations Law Assignment
Added on 2020-03-16
11 Pages2760 Words57 Views
Running head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW0Business andCorporations Law
BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW1Table of ContentsIntroduction................................................................................................................................2The Issue....................................................................................................................................3Facts...........................................................................................................................................3Judgement..................................................................................................................................4Nature of Legally Binding Contract...........................................................................................4Significance in Australian Contract Law...................................................................................4Impact of the Case over Advertisements...................................................................................5Relevant Cases...........................................................................................................................5Argument For and Against.........................................................................................................6Conclusion..................................................................................................................................8References..................................................................................................................................9
BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW2IntroductionFor the validity of a contract, it is necessary that the parties fulfill all the ncessaryrequirements. The crucial requirement of a valid contract includes offer & acceptance,consideration, mutual consent, intention, capability and legal object. In the modern world,corporations use marketing as a tool to attract a large number of customers. The difference ofa legitimate offer and a mere invitation to attract the customers is required to be defined.Many advertisements include a lawful proposal to contract which can be enforced bycustomers. The Carlill case is considered as a landmark case which popularised the provisionof the unilateral contract. Even after being a century old case, it still has a considerable impact on contract law.In this case, the court held an advertisement as a unilateral contract because it fulfills theessential requirement of a contract. This report will focus on analysing the importance ofCarlill v Carbolic Smoke BallCompany [1892] EWCA Civ 1 in modern legislation. Thereport will include the impact of this case over Australian contract law and various othercountries legislations. Numerous other similar examples will be discussed to understand thebasis of the unilateral contract. Further, the report will evaluate the presence of offer andacceptance provision in Australian Contract law and Consumer law.
BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW3The IssueThe critical issue, in this case, is the difference between a valid offer to contract and mere invitation to treat. The intention of parties is required whether subjectively or objectively, along with the notice of acceptance of accepting party together with any consideration which forms a unilateral contract. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd refused to reward the money that claimed through advertisement to Mrs. Carlill; the company claims thecommitment is not serious and it is a mere invitation to treat. They also argued that there is no evidence that conditions are fulfilled according to prescribed method, and there is no consideration available in the contract. The court dismissed the claims of corporations are provided that it is a valid unilateral contract as provided under section 9 of the Contract Act 1950.FactsIn 1891, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company launched a product called smoke ball which is claimed to cure influenza and various other diseases. The product was made of rubber, and it included a tube which was filled with carbolic acid. On 13th November 1891, the company published an advertisement in the newspaper stating that they would pay an amount of £100 to the person whose influenza or any other disease caused due to cold, would not be cured by using their product for three times a day and about three weeks (Loeb 2005). The advertisement also included a set of instruction which uses have to follow while using the smoke ball. The corporation submitted £1000 in Alliance Bank to show the public their genuineness in the matter (Elliott 2012). Mrs. Louisa Carlill saw the advertisement in the paper and bought one smoke becauseshe was suffering from influenza. She used it as per the instructions, for three times a day for nearly two months, but she did not get any better. Hence, she claimed her £100 reward from the enterprise; however, the corporation ignored the letter from Carlill lawyer. On her third letter, the company responded by stating that it is necessary that product is used in the best possible way, therefore, to protect themselves from fraud they asked Mrs. Carlill to visit their office each day for surveillance with the secretary. After that statement, Mrs. Carlill filed a suit against Carbolic Smoke Ball Company stating that there was a contract between company and Carlill, and the corporation has to pay her the reward money (Davis 2004).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Paper on Advertisement Case of Carlilllg...
|11
|3225
|180
Basic Business Law Assignmentlg...
|6
|1117
|49
Business and Corporations Lawlg...
|9
|2606
|417
(Sample) Business Law: Assignmentlg...
|7
|1317
|55
Enforceable Contract between Leila and Julielg...
|8
|1719
|310
Corporations and Business Lawlg...
|9
|2231
|197