Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Lex saturates
Law of contracts
Carlill
Vs.
Carbolic smoke balls
Analysis by:
Paridhi Shrivastava
2|Page
Table of content
Parties involved
Petitioner- carbolic smoke balls
Vs.
Respondent – Louisa carlill
Date of judgement
7/12/1893
Bench
1. Nathaniel lindley
2. Charles bowen
3. Baron bowen
4. Archibald smith
4|Page
Introduction
This case is concerned with the manufacture of smoke balls. It is one
the basic cases to understand the Indian contract law. The court of
appeal held in this case that all the essentials of a contract was present
i.e offer , acceptance , consideration and intentions to create legal
realations. The company was found to have been bound by its
advertisement, which was construed as an offer which the buyer, by
using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract.
Issues :
1. can one make contract with the whole world
of the offer?
Legal pronouncement :
Argument :
winning and another losing. Here, even if Mrs Carlill did not
as an insurance policy.
catching the flu was not something you had control over,and
the terms were far too vague to make any contract. New
from the plaintiff - Mrs Carlill did nothing of value for the
company - by getting the flu. They also argued that there was
7|Page
stole the Smoke Ball, and used it and got the flu, to get a
Judgement