Scribd
Upload
4 views

CASES

The document outlines several legal cases that illustrate key principles of contract law. Notable cases include Balfour vs. Balfour, which emphasizes that not all agreements constitute contracts, and Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball, which establishes that public offers can be accepted through performance without prior notification. Other cases discussed include Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Datt, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemists, and Harvey vs. Facey, each highlighting different aspects of offer, acceptance, and contractual obligations.

Uploaded by

21bba003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

CASES

The document outlines several legal cases that illustrate key principles of contract law. Notable cases include Balfour vs. Balfour, which emphasizes that not all agreements constitute contracts, and Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball, which establishes that public offers can be accepted through performance without prior notification. Other cases discussed include Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Datt, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs. Boots Cash Chemists, and Harvey vs. Facey, each highlighting different aspects of offer, acceptance, and contractual obligations.

Uploaded by

21bba003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Table of Contents

Balfour vs. Balfour.....................................................................................................................2


Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Datt....................................................................................................2
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball.................................................................................................2
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953)........3
Harvey vs Facey (1893).............................................................................................................3

Page | 1
ALofi+prasad+vs+uoi+air+1950+sc588
Balfour vs. Balfour
This case was filed by Mrs. Balfour against her husband Mr. Balfour. They both lived in
Ceylon and went to England for a holiday. During the holidays, Mrs. Balfour became ill and
was advised by the doctors to stay back in England and not return to Ceylon. Thus, due to
work pressure husband goes back to Ceylon leaving his wife back in England. An
arrangement was made between them that Mr. Balfour will provide Mrs. Balfour with Rs. 30
every month as an allowance. For a few months, this arrangement was concrete but due to
some differences they got separated and Mr. Balfour stopped sending Rs. 30 as an allowance
to Mrs. Balfour. The Court dismissed this case and held that there can be numerous
arrangements and agreements between two individuals but not all agreements or
arrangements are contracts.

Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Datt


In this case, the plaintiff, Lalman Shulka is the servant of Gauri Datt, the defendant. The
nephew of Gauri Datt flees from the house so Gauri Datt orders Lalman Shukla to go and
search for his nephew. When the plaintiff was away searching for the defendant’s nephew
then the defendant announced that whoever brings back his nephew will be awarded Rs.
501/-. The plaintiff has no information about the announcement and was successful in finding
the nephew of the defendant. Later, after the announcement of the reward Rs. 501/- is known
to him he wants to claim that amount and files a suit.
The Court (Jus. Banerjee) dismissed the case and held that the reward can only be claimed
when there is a contract between the parties but when the plaintiff had no knowledge of the
offer then there is no acceptance of it and when there is no acceptance of an offer then there
is no contract between the parties. Moreover, in this case, it was the duty of the plaintiff to
bring back the nephew, and hence no reward will be given to him. No knowledge-No
acceptance.

Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball


In this case, Carbolic Smoke Ball is a company that makes an advertisement for its product
‘Carbolic Smoke Ball’ which states that if any individual uses its product as per the
description and still is infected by influenza or cold then they will give Rs. 100/- to them.
Then a lady, Carlill starts to use the product as per the description and still catches influenza
and thus demands Rs. 100/- from the company and files a suit.

The counter-arguments given by the company was that firstly, the offer given by them is
vague as there is no specific time limit. Secondly, there was no intention to enter into a legal

Page | 2
obligation with the plaintiff. Thirdly, their offer was not with a particular individual nor any
acceptance was communicated by the plaintiff to them. And lastly, there is no consideration.
The Court held that this is not a vague offer but it is a definite offer as the company has itself
stated that while using their product if they are infected with any disease then they can claim
Rs. 100/-.it further stated than there is no need to communicate the acceptance of the offer it
is made to the public at large and if any individual satisfies all the conditions stated wherein.
Thus, the performance of the conditions is sufficient acceptance without notification. Held,
the plaintiff will be given the reward of Rs. 100/-.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953)

It was held in this case that display of articles in a shop, even on a self-service basis, is an
invitation to offer. When the customer selects the article and brings it to the cash desk, then it
is a proposal/offer by the customer, the acceptance of which can be given by the shopkeeper
by accepting payment from the customer.

Harvey vs Facey (1893)


In this case, the defendants were the owner of a plot of land known as Bumper Hall Pen.
Harvey sent a Telegram to Facey which stated: “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen?
Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid.” Facey replied by telegram: “Lowest price for
Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey then 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 an early
possession.” Facey then stated that he did not want to sell. In this case, the quotation of price
was held not to be an offer. The House of Lords held that the telegram was an invitation to
offer, not a valid offer. Therefore, no valid contract existed. The telegram only advised of the
price, it did not explain other terms or conditions and therefore could not create any legal
obligation. Harvey’s telegram “accepting” £900 was instead an offer that Facey could either
accept or reject. He rejected it, so there was no contract created.

Page | 3

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy