- This topic has 19 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
1. sir I did not understand on first defense ” offer to the world at large ” on the case Carlil V Carbolic.
I could just grab few points. defendant is saying I am not offering to the whole world. It is just for certain group of population. So how can defendant put this statement as defense?
2. sir another defense was ” there was no consideration moving from carlil”
carlil has paid certain amount in exchange of smoke ball. so,there is exchange of values.
so how can we say there was no consideration?The lectures explain both of these points!
At the time of the case it was believed not to be possible to make an offer except to an identified person or persons. The application of common sense saw that, where a reward is offered, then anyone in the world could conceivably accept that offer and claim the reward.
Thus, that defence failed
There are two contracts here! (As fully explained in the lecture!) The first was for the purchase and sale of the smoke balls. No argument – she paid money and received goods in exchange. Contract completed.
The second contract was the offer of the reward – you take our pills, catch influenza, we’ll pay you money. Ah but! A basic premise of English law is that where you do something for your own better health (a self-seeking act) this in itself is not enough to justify the description of “sufficient” when looked at in the context of “sufficient consideration”
So Mrs Carlill looked like she was going to lose the case because she hadn’t given sufficient consideration to be able to claim the reward. She hadn’t, for example, returned a lost dog or given information to the police leading to an arrest. What had she given as sufficient consideration? Apparently nothing! So, in tears and not having won her claim, Mrs Carlill turned to her legal representative and sobbed “So all that month of taking those foul smelling smoke balls …..” at which point the judge said “Whoa, whoa! What do you mean “Those foul smelling smoke balls”?” To which Mrs Carlill said “Have you never tried them? They are awful”
Smoke balls were sent for and brought into court where the judge tried one of these balls – he couldn’t stay under the towel for more than 5 seconds – they were so foul!
And the judge therefore said “Anyone that has suffered an entire month’s worth of these foul balls has clearly not done so purely for their own well-being and good health. There must have been some other motivation and that is sufficient to merit the title “consideration”
And so Mrs Carlill won her case
And all of that explanation is in the video lecture!
aah thank you so much for the clear explanation sir 🙂
sir, if I found a lost dog where a person has offered reward for anyone who finds the dog. but, i was completely unknown about reward before returning the dog . so can i claim the reward?
on 1 september, seller ltd sent a fax to buyer ltd offering to sell a machine at a price of 10,000 and stating that buyer ltd must accept by 10 september. on 3 september, buyer ltd sent a fax to seller ltd asking” will you accept payment over 3 months?’
on 5 september, seller ltd sold the machine to new ltd, and on 6 september received a second fax from buyer ltd accepting the offer and offering to make immediate payment.
which one of the following is correct?
1. there is no contract between seller ltd and buyer ltd because the offer was withdrawn on 5 september when a machine was sold to new ltd.2. seller ltd and buyer ltd contracted on 6 september.
sir isn’t it the 1st option correct? offeror can revoke the offer anytime before acceptance. so here offer is revoked before acceptance. but in book it is given 2nd option as correct answer. how?
“sir, if I found a lost dog where a person has offered reward for anyone who finds the dog. but, i was completely unknown about reward before returning the dog . so can i claim the reward?” – No, in order to be able to claim, you needed to have been aware of it. How can you claim something about which you are not aware?
“sir isn’t it the 1st option correct? offeror can revoke the offer anytime before acceptance. so here offer is revoked before acceptance. but in book it is given 2nd option as correct answer. how?” – no, the first one is not correct. Sure, the offeror can revoke at any time before acceptance but the offeree must actually be told that the offer has been revoked.
Otherwise, in any similar situation where an offeror wishes to avoid a contract, they could simply turn to the offeree and say “Oh, sorry. I changed my mind just this morning (or yesterday, or 10 minutes ago, or ….)”
thank you sir. 🙂
Alf sends a letter to Bert on 1 january offering to buy Bert’s antique Ming vase for 1000. On the same day Bert sends a letter to Alf offering to sell to Alf the same antique ming vase for 1000.
Alf now changes his mind and wishes to know the likely legal position.. in book the correct answer is ,
there is agreement, but no contract since neither Alf nor Bert knew that their offers had been accepted.. sir my confusions are:
1sir, in postal rule it is said that acceptance is completed as soon as letter is posted, isn’t it?
2. agreement is made by offering and accepting. so what that above answer mean ” there is agreement but later on it says their offer is not accepted. if offer has not been accepted how can we say there has been agreement?In contract law, an agreement comprises offer and acceptance (of that offer)
The book maybe be a little loose in saying that there is agreement. There is a situation where (at least, to begin with) two people have the same idea – the purchase and sale of a vase for $1,000
We have two people thinking along the same lines. But there has been no communication between them – except two lots of unilateral communication. so no offer has been accepted. we simply have two identical offers.
OK, maybe the book shouldn’t have used the word “agreement”
As for the applicability of the postal rule – where does that come in to the scenario?
The rule applies only to acceptance and, in the case that you quote, there is no acceptance. There are two offers, but no acceptance
thank you so much sir.
sir, if there is no acceptance, then even if the question says letter has been posted , postal rule is not applied .right?
sir I did not understand case of acceptance ” acceptance may be communicated by a reliable third party”
firstly, Lee himself was in interviewer panel so how can he be termed as reliable third party?
then, lee was just praising Powell ,he had not given guarantee to Powell. in many interviews, interviewer says to interviewee you did it better. so what’s the big deal here. isn’t it normal to praise interviewee?
this case messed me up. I even googled but not satisfied 🙁
“sir, if there is no acceptance, then even if the question says letter has been posted , postal rule is not applied .right?” – surely the claim is that the posting of the letter indicates acceptance, but it cannot have been acceptance because, at the time of posting, there was no offer
Lee was claimed as being a representative of the interviewing panel – an agent, if you like – and as such Powell claimed that Lee was an authorised representative
But he wasn’t
Now, moving away from the minutiai of Powell v Lee, you’re getting WAT TOO DEEP into these cases! The cases illustrate principles. Their names are not important, – just the principle.
You will NOT be expected to know any of these case names nor the details of the stories behind them
So don’t get stressed!
sir can you give example of ”acceptance may be communicated by a reliable third party”.
sir , in case of Ward v Byham , Ward took care of her child and made her child happy. so it’s the every parents natural duty to try to keep their child happy, isn’t it? how can we say this consideration as ” over and above a natural duty?
sir to be a consideration there must be some monetary value to the consideration. is it necessary to have monetary value from both parties? if we look above case, just Byham giving certain amount of money to her girlfriend has a monetary value but Ward taking care of her child doesn’t have …
sir I could not get the point ”monetary value to the consideration ”
“example of ”acceptance may be communicated by a reliable third party”” where the spouse of the offeree communicates acceptance of an offer made to the other spouse
‘…in case of Ward v Byham , Ward took care of her child and made her child happy. so it’s the every parents natural duty to try to keep their child happy, isn’t it?”
No! It’s the duty of every parent to raise the child and try to make sure that it’s not killed. Keeping it happy is a duty that is over and above
“….there must be some monetary value to the consideration. ” I don’t believe that I have ever said that. Consideration must have some VALUE, but I don’t think that I have ever said that the value must be capable of reliable monetary measurement. Mrs Carlill’s pain was not monetarilly measurable
sir that monetary value was from kaplan book. ”In White v Bluett case, a son’s promise to stop complaining did not amount to consideration as it had no monetary value”. this is what written in book.
sir in privity of contract , ” a person entitled to benefit under third party motor insurance can sue the insurer” .. In mid of the explanation, I got lost .
”If you are in car crash and is other person’s fault. here, you are in contract with your insurer and other person with his insurer. after this,I could not catch your accent 🙁
Please, don’t ask me to explain Kaplan’s loose talk! My explanation of White v Bluett is that it is a son’s natural duty not to give your father earache and any act in accordance with a natural duty already owed is not sufficient to merit the title consideration – it has no value (Notice, I don’t say “It has no monetary value”)
Your insurer can sue the other guy’s insurer even though they are not in direct contract.
Ok, my insurer sues in the capacity as my agent. But I’m not in contract with the other guy’s insurers either. But I can sue or my representative (my insurer) can sue
Do you not think it’s time to start a new thread? It takes too long to keep having to scroll down through multiple other posts to get to your most recent ones!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.