NAME: SM JEHANZEB KHAN Hammad Yousufzai

ID: 01-111192-183 01-111192-030

Contract Act 1872

This act defines "contract" as a law-enforced agreement. The essentials of a contract are:

 Intention to create a contract

 Offer and acceptance
 Consideration
 Capacity to enter into a contract
 Free consent of the parties

CASE STUDY:
This case study involves the feature of “Intention to create a contract” of the contract law
act 1872.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

This case involved the defendant company who produced and advertised smoke balls as a
preventative measure against influenza and the common cold……… The deposit of £100 into an
account was a demonstration of the defendants meaning and willingness to……… which the
claimant was due £100.

SUMMARY:
This case involved the defendant company who produced and advertised smoke balls as a
preventative measure against influenza and common cold. The advertisement Stated that they
would gave 100 $ to anyone who used The product for three times a day for two weeks but still
Contracted one of these illness. The defendant also started that they had placed £100 in a bank
account to demonstrate their sincerity. Suffice to say that the claimant took up the Challenge and
after roughly 8 weeks of continuous use she contracted the influenza.

The deposit of 100$ into account was a demonstration of the defendant meaning and willingness
to rely upon the product into light of this challenge. The court has hesitation in finding, in these
specific circumstances that there was a contract under which the claimant was due 100$, while
this case demonstrate how the law of contract protects the party who in consequence can accept
the term forward by the offeror. It remains something of an anomaly that this situation would
only be enforceable where the offer was required to undertake a specific task there by removing
the need for communicating acceptance and transfixing and invitation to treat into a formal offer.

Issue: The main issue stated by the judge was whether the offer of £100 was a promise or a
marketing sales puff (overstatement of the qualities of the good) by the company in order to do
sales.

Result: It was held by the court that the plaintiff, name Lilly Carlill was to be rewarded the
£100, dismissing the appeal of the defendant company on such grounds that the offer they made
in the advertisement wasn’t a puff but a promise, as show of sincerity and a challenge of 100%
prevention of influenza and cold.

Discussion: It is still somewhat a unique case as sales puffery is not considered to be a

promise as the buyer can choose to avoid the sale, so no contract is made between the two
parties. But in this case, the defendant elevated the advertisement to a level that they promised to
give £100 to the user who would catch flu after the usage of the smoke ball. So, a contract is
made between the plaintiff and the defendant company.

A contract can arise even when the intention was to make an informal offer, but in the absence of
specific statements to that effect, the conduct of the offeror may infer the requisite legal
intension.

Reference of the case study:

 https://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/contract-law.php
 https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-calamari/the-
agreement-process/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2/