Contract Law Assignment: Carbolic Ball & L'Estrange v Graucob Analysis

This assignment analyzes two significant contract law cases: Carbolic Ball Company and L'Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd. The Carbolic Ball Company case involves an advertisement promising a reward for users who contracted influenza after using their product, exploring the formation of a unilateral contract and the requirement of communication of acceptance. The assignment examines whether the advertisement constituted a binding offer and if the company's actions created a legally enforceable contract. The second case, L'Estrange v. F. Graucob Ltd, focuses on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature, specifically addressing the impact of an exclusion clause in a sales agreement for a cigarette machine. The analysis considers the circumstances under which a party is bound by a signed document, even if they have not read it, and the exceptions to this rule, such as fraud or misrepresentation. The assignment also references a case involving Pepsico and a Harrier Jet promotion, to highlight the requirements for a valid contract. The assignment concludes by referencing relevant legal frameworks, including the Sale of Goods Act 1979, to highlight the legal principles that govern contract law.

TWO EXERCISE

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Carbolic Ball Company is the case study which will be discussed in this session. This
company has placed an advertisement in the newspaper for the product. This advertisement
stated that whosoever is going to buy and use this product and contact to influenza will be
rewarded 100 Euros. In this advertisement, 1000 Euros will be provided in order to reflect
honesty. This company was very confident that their product is going to cure influenza. Carbolic
Smoke ball can also prevent people from getting any kind of common flu. This company stated
that if a person catches cold or gets affected by influenza after using the product then he or she
will be provided with 100 Euros.
Mrs Carlil purchased the product and she used the product as per the guidance provided in
advertisement. She claimed the reward but company denied it because defendant argued that they
are bounded by the advert. They said that advert are only “puff” and they are not claimable.
Issue of this case –
 Whether there was any binding effect of the contract between the parties?
 Whether the contract in question required a formal notification of acceptance?
 Whether Mrs Carlill was required to communicate her acceptance of the offer to the
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company? Whether Mrs Carlill provided any consideration in exchange for the reward of 100
pounds offered by the company?
Held – This case was discussed in Court and appeal was made that advertisement
amounted to offer is a unilateral contract as per the defenders. On the other hand, Pepsico has
put an advertisement in which they have stated that the person who is purchasing the product will
earn points which can be used as purchase points. These points when become equivalent to
7,000,000 points then in that case Harrier Jet will be provided to that lucky customer. Leonard, a
loyal customer of PepsiCo has met this condition and he asked PepsiCo to provide Jet or any
equivalent amount. His request was denied by PepsiCo and he filed case against the company.
Leonard put his efforts to prove PepsiCo has provided false representation just for increasing the
sales of their company. He lost because the advertisement does not included any kind of contract.
1

DISCUSSION
The Carbolic Smoke Ball company has provided argument that the product they are
offering does not has any kind of binding contract. The reason behind this is that words provided
in the advertisement are just a promise which can be broken. They are not a real commitment.
This company argued that there was no presence of specific limit because there was no time and
no means of checking the way in which products can be utilised.
2

INTRODUCTION
L'Estrange V F Graucob Ltd is help to lead the English contract law case that come in the
corporation of term into the contract by signature. There are higher range of exception which is
used to provide the rule which is based on the person which is bounded by their signature which
used to include section of fraud, misrepresentation and many more. As per this, the Lord denning
work as young barrister. They used to represent the organisation in their course of action but
sometime for instance they speaking in the parliament with the approach with the wrong
decision. Miss Harriet Mary had a great cafe in the town of great ormes road. In context with
this, there are two travelling salesman named Mr page and Mr Berse which used to represent the
Mr Graucob slot machine business. She want to buy cigarette machine and sign the document
and agree for the sales agreement. In this, they sales agreement used to state that they need as
soon for further documentation process (Goldberger 2019). As per this, they are agree with every
term and conditions but there is no any warranty and statutory fact. In this, she did not read the
document and they supposed to pay for the machine in the various instalment. The machine
which is received are not suppose to run because their condition is strictly poor even the expert
mechanic not fix it. Overall, she deny to pay all other instalment and take action in the country
court but she was sign with every term and condition in the sale agreement.
Issue: the cigarette machine not working as well. The sale agreement was sign with term
and condition.
Held: as per this, the judgement held on the behalf that mr graucob was not functionally
to rely on the exclusion clause. In context with this, Lord Herschell in the courtroom ask only
three question which entirely held the situation for long. As per this, Did the plaintiff know there
are nay significance writing or printing on the document paper? Now there is second question
which is used to writing or printing contained situation which is relating to the term of the
contract. There are third question which is used to create the conflict on the reason that make
sufficient to give the proper notice for that particular condition. Overall judge held the last
question which did not provide satisfactory reason (Omoyeni 2020).
DISCUSSION
With relation to this, the case still hold number of verification and legislation used to
provide an establishment which is bounded by their signature. As per this, it is general point of
3

initial starting. This case was going through the unfair term and there is no law which is
regulated with this. Miss L'Estrange usually won as per without any base of sign. Moreover, the
sale of good act 1979 section and emerge in article 14 state that every product and service have
must a controlled warranty from the seller as per their fitness (Zheng 2020).
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Goldberger, J., 2019. Incorporation by terms of reference or by a course of dealing-part 3 of 3.
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of
Australia, 33(3), pp.33-45.
Omoyeni, O., 2020. Forced Arbitrations: Rethinking Perspectives in Nigeria. The Gravitas
Review of Business & Property Law, 11(1).
Zheng, J., 2020. Validity of Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreements. In Online
Resolution of E-commerce Disputes (pp. 63-209). Springer, Cham.
5