FORMATION OF AN AGREEMENT Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Done By: Khattab Imane Supervised by: Mrs.Loubna Foundations of Law - Assignment 1 Marking Criteria B e f o r e : LORD JUSTICE BOWEN LORD JUSTICE LINDLEY LORD JUSTICE A.L. SMITH ____________________ Carlill Plaintiff vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Defendants Sample case summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 Prepared by Khattab Imane Procedural History Carbolic smoke ball Co; manufactured and sold the carbolic smoke ball. The company has developed various advertisements in newspapers offering a reward of 100 pounds to anyone to use the smoke ball three times a day according to the directions and contracting influenza, colds, or any other disease. After seeing the advertisement Carlill (P) bought the ball and use it according to the directions. Carlill contracted the flu and made a claim for the reward. Carbolic smoke ball didn't accept to pay and Carlill proceeded for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment has been entered for 100 pounds for Carlill and the company appealed . The Fact On 13/01/1891, the advertisement above was inserted in various newspapers: £100 REWARD WILL BE PAID BY THE CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO. to any Person who contracts the Increasing Epidemic, INFLUENZA, Cold, or any Diseases caused by taking Cold, after having used the CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL according to the printed directions supplied with each Ball. £1000 IS DEPOSITED with the ALLIANCE BANK, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. (Carbolicsmokeball.co.uk, 2000) Louisa Carlill; The plaintiff; was a consumer for carbolic smoke ball Co during a period of time. This last believed in... ... middle of paper ... ...o be discharged to the general public and may be browse by public.How would an ordinary person reading this document construe it? His opinion was additional tightly structured and often cited. writing for the majority, command that the contract wasn't with the total world, however rather with people who fulfill the stipulated conditions. He relies on his construction of the document that there is no time limite of the contract.Then the Lord Bowen LJ came with a conclusion that if so :it seems to me that the advertisement was so clear and there was ample consideration for the promise, and that, thus, the plaintiffhave the right to recover her reward. LORD JUSTICE A. L. SMITH His judgment was decided on same basis as Bowen J and Lindley ; it was more General . Appeal was dismissed by all three judges and Mrs.Louisa Carlill finally got the reward of 100 pounds
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
In the 1970s, engineers found contaminants in the local wells: Well H and Well G. They found suspected carcinogens including trichloroethylene (TCE) known to cause cancer. Families gathered after the Anderson family noticed the recurring events of a rare disease in a small town. Although Woburn had a history of industrial activity, the two major companies that contributed to the contaminants were W.R. Grace Co. and Beatrice Foods. The families sought help and went to a Boston lawyer, Joe Mulligan, and signed his firm. No one picked up the case due to not enough evidence, but Jan Schlictmann, who was a newcomer, picked up the Woburn case. Although advised to neglect it, he still looked into it. He joined with a non-profit firm who were seeking an environmental case like Woburn’s. They quickly filed a complaint against the two major companies.
In the case, “Facing a Fire” prepared by Ann Buchholtz, there are several problems and issues to identify in determining if Herman Singer should rebuild the factory due to a fire or retire on his insurance proceeds. I believe that this case is about social reform and self-interest. I think that Singer needs to ask himself, what is in the firm’s best economic interests. There are several things to question within this case, what should Herman Singer do and why, should he rebuild the factory or begin retirement, if he rebuilds, should he relocate the firm to an area where wages are lower and what provisions, if any, should Singer make for his employees as well as for the community?
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
...Discharge Protections in an At-Will World." Texas Law Review 74 Tex. L. Rev. 1655 (1996): Print.
Andrews N, Strangers to Justice No Longer: The Reversal of the Privity Rule under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (2001) 60 The Cambridge Law Journal 353
Smoking tobacco in the cigarette form was extremely popular in the early part of the 20th century. Many people joined in the popular habit, got addicted, and had no fear of the future consequences or health concerns. Many people were under the impression that smoking was good for their bodies, and were unaware of the unhealthy side affects that cigarette smoking caused. Some famous people like Walt Disney, Ty Cobb, and Babe Ruth all were killed from their love of tobacco. Soon enough more and more cases of lung, throat, and mouth cancers began popping up all over the place, but people were reluctant to blame their beloved tobacco. It wasn’t until 1964 when Surgeon General Luther Terry stated that smoking causes lung cancer in people who smoke and inhale the fumes, that perceptions on smoking began to change. Since the findings of the Surgeon General, there has been an on going battle between pro-smoking, and anti-smoking groups over the rights of smokers. As the non smoking movement is growing at a rapid pace, and smoking bans have been ruled to not violate the 1st Amendment. In the last decade we have banned smoking in almost all public areas from bars and restaurants, offices, malls, and living quarters. The smoking bans are one effective way to abolish smoking, but it fails to address the major component in smoking; addiction to nicotine, and the psychological effect it has on users. Unfortunately, there isn’t an easy way to end smoking. This is because treatment plans have such a small level of success. Medical treatment such as prescription medication often have more side effects than positive effects for the user. But one product has been making huge gains in the fight to quit tobacco, and that is the electronic cigarette...
Smokers all over the United States in recent years have brought class-action suits against the tobacco companies. Plaintiffs argue that the tobacco companies had knowledge of the health risks that could be associated with smoking, but they chose to withhold this information from the public. Since they chose to withhold this information the companies should be responsible for the cost of their health problems. Smokers have been rather successful in this endeavor especially since it has been a scientifically proven fact that smoking causes lung cancer. In Florida alone smokers and their families were awarded 200 billion dollars (Thomas ).
On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through the pants that she was wearing. Upon arriving at the hospital she was informed by the doctors that she suffered third degree on six percent of her skin. Liebeck suffered tremendously as a result of the burn. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo surgery. Apart from that she was somewhat disabled for two years. Liebeck made attempts to settle with McDonald, she wanted them to be accountable for the injury she suffered. She wanted them to pay for the incurred expenses as well as the expense she anticipated in the future. McDonald on the other hand agreed to pay $800.00 but Liebeck was asking for $20.000. This case wasn’t settled using ADR methods so it became a trial (Wiki, n.d).
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
Malleson K, ‘Rethinking the Merit Principle in Judicial Selection’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 126
The next important point the article focuses on how smoking in the workplace leads to increased damages to properties and added expenditures to business owners. Each year approximately $72 million expenses are connected to smoking and businesses can be damaged or burnt down by the use of cigarettes/cigars. Furthermore, if an employee smokes, health premiums will be higher and smokers are more likely to become sick. This leads to smokers to miss an increased amount of days of work, costing the company more money and loss of production/productivity. All these issues are leading many companies to establish policies that limit or prohibit smoking in the workplace.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).