The ‘Carbolic Smoke Ball’ company was selling these self-proclaimed health enhancing and illness-curing products during and throughout the 1890’s, parallel to the catastrophic flu pandemic of it’s time. The smoke ball was a product created to flush out and prevent the illnesses that the company had outlined on their advertisement, providing they used it as stated in the advert. A brave and sales-enhancing campaign further stated that they were so confident of their product, that they would reward anybody who later contracted the mentioned illnesses £100. They even put money away in a bank account (only enough to reward 10 claimants their compensation) to prove the sincerity of their claim. ‘’£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter’’ E-LAWRESOURCES. (2012). Inevitably, there was a claim. Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill, on the faith of the advertisements’ claims, purchased one of the balls at her local chemist, using it as directed. Despite this, Mrs. Carlill contracted a cold. Her husband contacted the company, telling them how his wife had contracted the illness after using the product. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. in response, asked Mrs. Carlill to travel to them three times daily, for the 14 days required, in order to prove to them, directly, that she had been using the product sufficiently. Mrs. Carlill refused, having already used the product for the 14 days in the expected manner and proceeded to sue the Company for breach of contract (ABBOT 1892: 203). The company, in c... ... middle of paper ... ...(2006) Textbook on Contract Law. 8th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. • RICHES, S. And ALLEN, V. (2013) Keenan and Riches’ Business Law. Eleventh Edition • SKINNER, R. (2006) Guide to the Law of Contract. Brighton: Straightforward Publishing • Slideshare (2004) Carlill v Carbolic smoke Ball Company [online] Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/VivekAnanda1/carbolic-smoke-ball-co [Accessed: 2nd January 2014] • STONE, R (2013) The modern Law of Contract. 10th Ed. New York: Routledge • HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014] Legal Cases • Bowerman v Association of British Travel Agents Ltd  CLC 451 35 • Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd  1 QB 256 • Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562… 5,429,442
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.
Tobacco companies started making collection cards, with photographs of models and baseball players, in cigarette packages to encourage new smokers. In 1964, the United States Surgeon General released a report stating that cigarette smoking was causing health hazards. As to American people that abused of cigarettes thought that consuming it wouldn’t cause any harm even when medical statistics were coming out to light. Smoking cigarettes has been part of American Culture for centuries and no body is about to stop this consumption because of several statistics. Many people that knew about this controversy didn’t know a way to stop it, only that it would continue to be part of an american’s life.
2. In this hypothetical, it seems unlikely that Alston could maintain a standing to sue against anyone of the cigarette manufacturers, individually or collectively. In order to do so, she would have to prove first that she suffered an injury in fact, and even then she would have to prove that the suffered harm is direct, concrete and individualized.
To address the statement that selling cigarettes is unethical due to the danger associated with it, one must determine what separates this manufactured good from other harmful products. It is true that tobacco is a dangerous drug and can do damage to a person; how...
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 ).
Having evaluated the current state of English contract law, mainly made up of piecemeal solutions, it can be seen that despite being satisfactory and doing its job, there still remain gaps within the law of contract where unfairness is not dealt with. Moreover, due to the ad hoc nature of those piecemeal solutions, the latter have often produced inconsistent justice and have manifested cases of unfairness. Hence, “a relatively small number of respected Justices have endeavored to draw attention to the fact that the application of a general principle might be useful and even necessary in English law.”
In the years 1950-1968, the tobacco industries knew that their product was harmful and didn¹t decide to warn the American public until the year 1969. Because of the tobacco companies irresponsibility, our older generations are enduring painful, inevitable deaths. The tobacco companies have been arguing for years that no studies have been done within their company about the correlation of cigarette smoking and lung cancer and that they are ignorant on that matter. They have been keeping things from us for years while studies outside the tobacco companies had been done to help prove that smoking is harmful in the short and long runs to one¹s health. There was a memo written in 1963 marked ³strictly private and confidential² which stated,² moreover, nicotine is addictive... We are then in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms.²(Hwang). If the tobacco companies were in fact ³ignorant² on the correlation between their product and lung cancer along with other diseases, then they should make themselves more educated about their own product or suffer the consequences and face law suits from the government and citizens of America. But, in fact, the tobacco companies have known for years what is really in each cigarette and how it really might affect us in the long run.
Secondhand smoke can cause much more damage than people can imagine. It is the cause for severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome in children. Although the people being affected by secondhand smoke aren’t smoking themselves, it is a very growing problem around the world. There are many big companies that sell cigarettes such as Newport and Marlboro but organizations also exist in the world that are trying to influence smokers to stop smoking. In the very clever and moving advertisement released in April 2008 by CONAC, also known as the Chilean Corporation Against Cancer, the corporation uses ethos, pathos, and logos to express the idea that smoking isn’t just dangerous for the smoker but for everyone else around them especially children. The company’s goal is to influence smokers to stop smoking around them.
This was in a case which started in 1991 and ended in 1997 as internal industry documents describing 14-24 year olds as 'tomorrow 's cigarette business ' was released in USA. Their third argument was that the revenue, concluded by analysts, from cigarettes was invalid as they estimated that cigarettes contributed only 0.14% of the G.D.P and the health costs about 0.21% of the G.D.P. Their fourth argument was that a study on tobacco consumption and employment showed effective policies to reduce smoking but increased employment. Instead of people spending money on cigarettes, they invested it in goods and services thereby creating more jobs. Their fifth argument was that of the impact of cigarette advertising on consumers. According to a World Bank report, it advised policy makers to completely ban tobacco advertising and promotion, they should cover completely all media and all uses of brand names and logos. It also published the details of a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, comparing the consumption trends over time in those countries where they were relatively complete bans on advertising and promotion and where they were no such bans. It
Smoking is a simple process of inhaling and exhaling the fumes of burning tobacco, but it has deadly consequences. According to the American Cancer Society, smoking is the most preventable cause of death in America today (Encarta, 2002). Until the 1940?s, smoking was considered harmless. It was at this time that epidemiologists noticed a dramatic increase in the cases of lung cancer. A study was then conducted between smokers and nonsmokers to determine if cigarettes were the cause of this increase. This study, conducted by the American Cancer Society, found increased mortality among smokers. Yet it was not until 1964 that the Surgeon General put out a report acknowledging the danger of cigarettes. The first action to curb smoking was the mandate of a warning on cigarette packages by the Federal Trade Commission (Encarta, 2002). In 1971, all cigarette advertising was banned from radio and television, and cities and states passed laws requiring nonsmoking sections in public places and workplaces (Encarta, 2002). Now in some cities smoking is being completely banned from public places and workplaces and various people are striving for more of these laws against smoking.
It is thought that paupers in Seville were making a form of cigarette, known as ‘papelette’, from the butts of discarded cigars and papers as early as the 17th century. In 1856, the first cigarette factory opened. It was in Walworth, England, and owned by Robert Golag, a veteran of the Crimean War. Four decades later, fears about the effects of cigarette smoking aroused in The Lancet.