There are countless landmark decisions that have impacted the legal landscape in the UK, and we have described just a few below: “The amusing circumstances of the case should not mask how willing the court was to conceive industrial relationships in the form of contracts. The parties to the alleged contract never met directly or communicated with each other. Nor had they exchanged goods, money or services with each other. Contract law is used by the court as a tool to deter misleading and extravagant claims in advertising and to deter the marketing of unproven and potentially dangerous drugs. The jury goes through a shopping list with questions: Was there a promise? Was the promise serious and intended to be implemented? Was the promise sufficiently precise and secure? Has the promise been accepted by the applicant? Did the applicant perform an act in exchange for the promise? The generality and abstraction of the rules allow both the full application of [contract law] and its application to the case, without examining issues such as the moral claims of the parties, the nature of the pharmaceutical market and the problems caused by misleading advertising. Its doctrinal integrity helps to gain legitimacy because the law can be presented as objective and neutral, not as a matter of policy or preference, but as a fixed set of rules and principles, legitimized by tradition and routine observance, and applied impartially and fairly to all citizens. [18] The directive provides for 3 times a day for 3 weeks; If a person complies with this policy and becomes ill from flu or cold-related illnesses, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company will pay the person 100 L as stated. The defendant further stated in the complaint that he had filed the promised 1000 l with Alliance Bank, demonstrating his honesty, transparency and willingness to keep the promise. They further pointed out how this ball of carbolic smoke had been used by people during the previous flu epidemic to prevent influenza, and there were no reports that people who used the carbolic smoke ball had contracted the disease.
In a much more recent American case from the Southern District of New York, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc,[21] Judge Kimba Wood wrote: In fact, when the plaintiff wrote to the company after contracting the flu, the company was more likely to invite her to come and use the smokeball under her supervision. The defendant also argued that a contract was concluded only if the tenderer had received a duly notified acceptance. The plaintiff`s private action with the fogball could therefore not constitute an effective acceptance. Exhibit. Lindley, L.J., writing for the Court of Appeal, notes that the main issue is whether the wording of the defendant`s advertisement for the £100 reward should be an explicit promise or rather a non-meaningful kick to sell. I now come to the last point which, in my view, deserves our attention, namely considerations. It has been argued that this is a nudum pactum – that there is no quid pro quo. We must apply the usual legal criteria to this argument.
Let us see if there is no advantage for the accused. It is said that the use of the ball is not an advantage for them and that what benefits them is the sale; And it is argued that many of these bullets could be stolen and that there would be no benefit to the defendants if the thief or others used them. The answer, I think, is this. It is clear that, according to advertisers, the use of their drug by the public, if only they can gain the public`s trust to use it, will react and result in a sale that will directly benefit them. As a result, advertisers derive sufficient benefit from the use to constitute consideration. They also argued that the language in the advertisement was too broad and unclear to enter into a contract. In addition, there is no specific time or period for the occurrence or performance of the alleged contract, nor is it possible to verify whether a plaintiff or plaintiff in this case actually used the smokeball and was infected with influenza, since anyone infected with influenza could claim to have contracted influenza after using the product. “100l. The reward is paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to anyone who, after two weeks of using the ball, becomes ill with a growing epidemic flu, cold or other cold-related illnesses three times a day according to the instructions provided with that ball. The balloon lasts several months for a family and can be filled for 5s.” Discussion. This case supports the argument that, although the stamping of sales in advertisements is not generally used to establish a contract with potential purchasers of products, in this case it is because the defendant raised its wording to the level of a promise based on its own sincerity. The first point in the present case is whether the defendant`s advertisement, published in the Pall Mall Gazette, was an offer which, if accepted and its conditions were met, constituted a promise to pay, provided that there was good consideration to keep that promise or whether it was simply a train from which no promise could be derived.
or, as Mr. Finlay said, a simple statement by the defendants about the confidence they had in the effectiveness of their appeal. Or, as I said in Lord Campbell`s words in Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. [11] could indicate whether this advertisement was just old paper. This is the first question that needs to be clarified. It seems to me that this advertisement reads as follows: The defendants in this case are manufacturers of smoke balls. They placed an ad in a newspaper saying that they would give the sum of 100 litres to each person who uses their smoked ball and catches the flu. This was at a time when the flu was increasing. There was an imprint on their smokeball product showing instructions to follow when using the smoke ball. But then he says, “Assuming that the satisfaction of the conditions is an acceptance of the offer, that acceptance should have been communicated.” Undoubtedly, when an offer is made to conclude a binding contract, it is usually necessary not only that it be accepted, but that the acceptance be communicated.