Carlill vs. Carbolic Case and Relevance to Nepalese Law

Assignment on the case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Ltd a) Explain whether there was any contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball or not? Give reason. Yes, there was contract made between Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. The advertisement was placed in newspaper and said that the smoke ball product would prevent influenza if the buyers used it as directed and in spite of this if the buyer catches influenza than the company would give ? 100 to the user as compensation.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

So this is the case of a general offer (section 10, Nepalese Contract Act 2000). When both the parties legally obey the terms of condition of this offer than the contract is created.

In this case, anyone who accepts the condition by buying the product and uses it as directed is an offeree and the company is the offerer while ? 100 is the amount that is given to the offeree if the conditions are not met i. e. if the buyer catches influenza. So Ms Carlill entered into the contract with Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd as soon as she bought the smoke balls and used it as directed.

It was a contract and following points can be summarized supporting it:- • the advertisement was clearly an offer • the terms and conditions were clear • offer was duly accepted by Ms Carlill when the purchase was made and acts performed accordingly • no notice of acceptance was required But if the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Ltd had withdrawn the offer before Carlill used or reacted publicly to the use of the smoke ball than there would not have been a contract. b) Do you agree that Ms Carill cannot accept the offer? Why? I do not agree that Ms Carlill cannot accept the offer.

This is because the advertisement was a general offer that anyone could accept regardless of age, gender, occupation or anything else (unless and until they were of unsound mind or minor) and as the condition was that the buyer had to follow the instruction and do according to it, Ms Carlill also did the same. For the acceptance of an offer both party must give something in return. It cannot be said that Ms Carlill did not give anything in return for the reward as she bought the product and was sincerely involved and dedicated in using it in the proper way and devoted her time using it.

Thus Ms Carlill can definitely accept the offer.

c) Can we justify the legality of Carlill’s claim under Nepalese Act 2000 law? Briefly explain. According to Nepalese Act 2000, Ms Carlill’s claim is legal. In section 10 of Nepalese contract act 2000 it is clearly written that “if any person announces to reward or pay to any one through advertisement, for any work to be done and any person who acts according to the advertisement, the one who advertises shall pay or reward as per the advertisement. In another part of the same section it is written that “however, the offerer shall not pay to the one who performs without having knowledge of the offer. ” In this case, Carbolic Smoke Ball company had clearly stated in their advertisement about the reward (or compensation in this case) they would pay to anyone who used their smoke balls according to how they described and still catches influenza. Also Carlill had the knowledge about this offer while she bought the smoke balls.

So clearly from Nepalese Act 2000, Ms Carlill had right to claim against Carbolic Smoke Ball company. d) What happens if the offer is accepted in ignorance without having the knowledge of it? Does this ignorantly accepted offer create legal obligations? Explain. If the offer is accepted in ignorance without having the knowledge of it then it is not an offer. This cannot make the offeree gain any rewards or compensation if there is any for accepting and fulfilling the conditions of the offer.

This ignorantly accepted offer cannot create legal obligations. Section 10 of Nepalese contract act 2000 also explains the same.

When the offer is not made in ‘agreement’ of the both parties as in this case, contract cannot be made. However, if the offer is accepted in ignorance while the offeree does according to the terms and condition required in a committed manner than the offeree can create legal obligations if he/she wants to gain the benefit of the contract according to recent trends.