Skip to main content

Case laws related to offer in contract

 Case laws related to offer in contract


Carlill v. Carbolic smoke ball co.

A company named carbolic smoke ball company used to sell a product named carbolic smoke balls and guaranteed that Consumption of the smoke balls three times daily for two weeks that person will not catch influenza by any chance. And if anybody after consuming the carbolic smoke balls in the prescribed manner catches influenza the company would pay him/her an amount of hundred euros and to make people believe about the reward system they had deposited thousand euros in public bank

The Plaintiff  used the small balls as prescribed but still ended up catching the flu and thus demanded for the reward.

The company straightaway declined to give the reward as they said there was an offer from their side but there was no acceptance so there was no contract

The court held that when the plaintiff completed the conditions in the advert, she provided acceptance and thus forming a contract. There was general offer and acceptance by the conduct of plaintiff .


In the case of Tinn v. Hoffman

In this case Mr.Tinn as well as Mr.hoffman made and offer to Each other and the offer was of similar kind but it won’t amount to contract as there were only cross offers and no acceptance.


Hyde v. Wrench

Defendant offered the plaintive to sell his farm for $1200 but the plaintive declined the offer

Defendant again made an offer to sell his farm but this time the amount was £1000 ,Hyde declined the offer

Hyde then made an counter offer to the defendant and asked him to sell it for £950

Hyde agreed to buy the farm for £1000 without any additional agreement from wrench , but wrench refused to sell the farm.

Hyde approach the court for the same that defendant had offered him to sell the farm for £1000 but now is declining to sell.

The court held that as soon as a counter offer was made all the offer previously made cannot be counted it is automatically declined.

Harvey v. Facey

In this case the offer was made on an online platform named telegram. Harvey communicated with the defendant about all pen the message was as follows “ Will you sell us bumper Hall pen? Telegram lowest cash price answer per”

The same day the plaintive replied to the message received that the price of the pen is £ 900

The appellant replied “ we agree to buy Bumper hall pen for the sum of £900 asked by you. Please send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession.

The defendant declined to sell the pen for £900 as the reply he made just was an answer to the lowest cash on telegram but didn’t agreed to sell the pen for that amount

This would amount to invitation to offer


Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain versus boots cash chemist Ltd

It was held in this case was the price tag displayed on the product or attached to the product in a store amounts to invitation to offer.

Das, the shopkeeper has the right to accept or reject the same and the contract would only rise when the offer is accepted.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree