ACTG 1P71 Study Guide - Final Guide: Independent Contractor, Fiduciary, Ginger Beer
4 Apr 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Question 2: carlill v. carbolic smoke ball co, carbolic smoke ball co. , the defendant, made a product claiming that it would protect users from inluenza. They stated in an adverisement that 1000 euros had been deposited into the bank and that anyone who used their product and got inluenza could claim this money. Carlil, the plainif, used the product, got inluenza, and claimed the money. Carbolic smoke ball co. refused to pay saying that the adverisement was not to been taken seriously by the public and that it was to market their product. However since they deposited the money, it was a unilateral contract and carlil had performed. It was determined by the court that a reasonable person would take the adverisement seriously. It was a misleading adverisement and therefore the contract was valid and. The plainif suing was successful in this case: donoghue v. stevenson, donohue"s friend bought her a botle of ginger beer.
