Carbolic Smoke Ball Legal Case

  • Autor de la entrada:
  • Categoría de la entrada:Sin categoría

Professor A. W. B. Simpson, in an article entitled «Quackery and Contract Law»[19], cited the context of the case in the context of the fear aroused by the Russian flu pandemic of 1889-90. He points out that no one yet knew what the flu really was, or how to prevent or cure it. After being patented, the Carbolic Smoke Ball had indeed become very popular in many prestigious circles, including the Bishop of London, who felt that it «helped me a lot». [20] The inventor, Frederick Roe, had led a fierce campaign when the epidemic hit London, which was widely reported in the press. But in the Pall Mall Gazette (only one case in which he ran commercials), there were many, many more quack remedies for misunderstood problems. After the case was decided by the Court of Appeal, it received general approval, but especially from the medical community. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had waged an ongoing battle against quack remedies and, since 1882, had specifically wanted to add carbolic acid to the poison registry. Although Simpson had no sympathy for the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company itself, he casts doubt on whether Carlill was properly decided. It follows with essentially five points. First of all, the advertisement was not a «mere puff» as the company had claimed because the £1,000 deposit at the bank showed seriousness.

[3] Second, the advertisement was an offer specifically addressed to anyone who met the conditions of the advertisement, not a statement «not made with any particular person». Third, notification of acceptance is not required for a contract if the conduct of the persons expresses the intention to perform a contract. Fourth, that the vagueness of the conditions of publicity did not constitute an insurmountable obstacle. And fifth, the nature of Ms. Carlill`s consideration (which she gave in exchange for the offer) was good, as there is both an advantage in additional sales in response to advertising and a «distinct inconvenience» that people go to when they use a ball of smoke. Although a notice of acceptance is generally required, the supplier may waive the need for a notification and had done so in this case. In this case, it was implied that the target recipient (Ms. Carlill) did not have to communicate her intention to accept; On the contrary, acceptance was made by performing the requested actions (using the smoke ball) The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

made a product called «smoke ball» and claimed that it was a cure for the flu and a number of other diseases. (The 1889-1890 flu pandemic killed an estimated 1 million people.) The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a pipe attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The hose would be inserted into the user`s nose and compressed to the bottom to release the fumes. The nose ran and was supposed to eliminate viral infections. Then we were pressed with Gerhard V. Bates. [6] In Gerhard v. Bates, which was brought in the Demurrer case, the action did not concern the fact that the plaintiff did not claim that the company was addressed to the group to which only the plaintiff belonged and that there was therefore no secrecy between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Then Lord Campbell continued to give a second reason. If his first reason was not sufficient and the plaintiff and the defendant had met there as contracting parties and the only issue had been consideration, Lord Campbell`s argument does not seem to me to be well founded. It is supported only by the fact that it is read as an additional reason to believe that they have not established the relations of the Contracting Parties; But if that was the case, language was superfluous.

The truth is that if you had found a contract between the parties in this case, there would have been no difficulty in the review; but such a contract could not be found. Here, in the same way, once you decided that there was a promise that was made to this lady who is the plaintiff as one to the public – a promise that was given to her that if she used the smoke ball three times a day for two weeks and caught the flu, it should be 100l. It seems to me that their use of the smoke ball has been sufficiently taken into account. I cannot imagine what legal opinion could be the opposite once it is discovered who the contracting parties are. If I say to a person, «If you use this and that drug for a week, I will give you 5 liters.» and he uses it, there is a lot of consideration for the promise. The first point in the present case is whether the defendant`s complaint, which appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette, was an offer which, if accepted and its conditions were met, constituted a promise of payment, provided that there were good considerations for keeping that promise, or whether it was merely a movement from which no promise could be drawn, or, as by lord.