English Public Advertisement: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
1416 Words6 Pages
This case is the most vital cases in English legal history. This case clarify what it is to construct an offer in an advertisement and how the public claimed that they had accepted the offer and performed under the terms of the advertisement.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that their smoke ball able to prevent users from contracting influenza and similar illness .
The company was so confident of the usefulness of the carbolic smoke ball and advertised that £100 will be rewarded to anyone who still contracted influenza after using the ball for three times daily for two weeks and they had deposited £1000 in the Alliance Bank in the event of such claims.
After seeing the advertisement Mrs. Carlill, the claimant, bought one of the…show more content… Warlow v Harrison
There was a public auction of a horse, “without reserve” was made known by the defendant, an auctioneer. The claimant bid 60 guineas and the owner of the horse bid 61 guineas. There were no more bids and the appellant put down his hammer on the bid for 61 guineas. The claimant claimed that the horse should belong to him because he was the highest bona fide bidder. The court held that the advertisement included the words without reserve was an offer of unilateral contract as the defendant bound himself to sell to the highest bidder.
Barry v Davies (Heathcote Ball & Co.)
The defendant, an auctioneer, was ordered to sell two machines used in the automotive industry. The plaintiff was informed that the sale would be without reserve. The plaintiff bid £200 for each of the machines and he was the highest bidder. However, the defendant refused the claimant’s bid and withdrew the lots from auction. The plaintiff seeks for legal remedy for the breach of contract. The court followed the case of Warlow v Harrison and found that there was an offer by the defendant as the auction was without reserve. The plaintiff had accepted by making the highest bid, therefore the defendant was in breach of contract, thus the plaintiff was awarded