General The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

made a product called

Offer the "smoke ball" and claimed it to be a cure for
influenza and a number of other diseases. The
Company published advertisements claiming that it
Acceptance by Carlill v. would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with
conduct, Carbolic Court of influenza after using its product according to the
Continuing Smoke Ball Appeal instructions provided with it. Carlill saw the
offer Company advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it
three times daily for nearly two months until she
contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed
£100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.
Decided in favour of Carlill.
Cross Offer Tinn v. The defendant, Mr Hoffman wrote to the
Hoffman complainant, Mr Tinn with an offer to sell him 800
tons of iron for the price of 69s per ton. He
requested a reply to this offer by post. On the same
day, without knowing of this offer, Mr Tin also wrote
to Mr Hoffman. He offered to buy the iron on similar
 terms. This case concerned the validity of these two
cross offers. It was held in this case that there was
no contract between Mr Tinn and Mr Hoffman.
Defendant’s nephew absconded from home. He
Lalman
Allahabad sent his servant in search of the boy. When the
Shukla v.
HC servant had left, the defendant announced a reward
Gauri Datt
of Rs. 501 for
anyone who finds the boy. Servant came to know of the reward only when he had traced
the child, brought an action for reward. Decided in favour of defendant.

Har Bhajan Lal v. Har Charan

Lal

Communication Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (given above) when Complete

Intention Wife living England, husband living in Ceylon.
to Husband agreed to send 30 pounds for expenses
Contract Balfour v. Court of and maintenance. Due to some differences
Balfour Appeal between the two, he stopped sending the
amount. Held that there was no intention to
contract.
Court of
McGregor v. Husband and wife agreed to withdraw their
Appeal
McGregor complaints. Agreement was held to be binding.
Wellington
Jones v. Court of Mother agreed to pay for her daughter’s legal
Padavatton Appeal education so that she can come live with her
afterwards as a lawyer. She also bought a house
for the daughter, part of which was rented out.
Daughter did not complete education during a
period of 5 years, and also remarried. Mother
stopped payments and started eviction
proceedings against the daughter. Decided in
favour of mother as there was no intention to
contract.
 Ms. Simpkins was a paying boarder at Ms. Pays
house, who lived with her granddaughter. Ms.
Simpkins habitually entered into newspaper
competitions. Concerning one weekly Sunday
newspaper competition, the three agreed that Ms.
Objectivity
Simpkins v. Queen’s Simpkins would fill in a weekly coupon, with each
test of
Pays Bench person making three forecasts, yet submitting
intention
them in Ms. Pays name, and divide the prize in the
event of winning. A forecast made by Ms. Pays’
granddaughter in one of the coupons submitted
won a prize of £750 under Ms. Pays name. Ms.
Pays refused to
distribute the prize and Ms. Simpkins claimed for one- third of the prize under
their agreement. The Court held that the mutual arrangement, no matter how
informal, constituted a legally-binding agreement to divide the shares in thirds.
Mr. Merritt and his wife jointly owned a house. Mr. Merritt left to live with
another woman. They made an agreement (signed) that Mr. Merritt would pay
Mrs. Merritt a £40 monthly sum, and eventually transfer the house to her, if Mrs.
Meritt
Court of Merritt kept up the monthly mortgage payments. When the mortgage was paid
v.
Appeal Mr. Merritt refused to transfer the house. The Court of Appeal held that nature of
Meritt
the dealings, and the fact that the Merritts were separated when they signed their
contract, allowed the court to assume that their agreement was more than a
domestic arrangement and legally binding.
Gould v. Gould

Rose and Frank Co was the sole US distributor of JR Crompton's

carbon paper products. In 1913, the parties signed a new
document which included this clause: “This arrangement is not
entered into, nor is this memorandum written, as a formal or legal
agreement and shall not be subject to legal jurisdiction in the law
Rose & Frank courts ..., but it is only a definite expression and record of the
House
Business Co. v. J. R. purpose and intention of the three parties concerned to which
of
Matters Crompton & they each honourably pledge themselves with the fullest
Lords
Bros Ltd. confidence, based upon past business with each other, that it will
be carried through by each of the three parties with mutual
loyalty and friendly co-operation.”

The relationship between the two parties broke down as JR

Crompton refused to supply some of the orders of the