The company advertised that it would pay £100 to anyone who caught influenza after using its smoke ball as directed, and deposited £1,000 with a bank to show its sincerity. Mrs Carlill used the ball, caught flu and sued. The Court of Appeal held that the advertisement was a unilateral offer to the world, accepted by performing the conditions, without any need to communicate acceptance.
Court of Appeal (England).
An offer can be made to the world at large.
Quick check: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) is authority that:
Past consideration is good consideration
Silence can be acceptance
An offer can be made to the world at large
A minor's contract is void
Answer: C.
1919
Balfour v. Balfour
Domestic agreements
A husband working in Ceylon promised his wife £30 a month while she stayed in England. When the marriage broke down she sued. The Court of Appeal held that agreements between spouses in domestic life are generally not intended to create legal relations and are not enforceable contracts.
Quick check: Balfour v. Balfour (1919) concerns:
Privity
Undue influence
Intention to create legal relations
Frustration
Answer: C.
1854
Hadley v. Baxendale
Remoteness of damages
A carrier delayed delivering a broken mill crankshaft, and the mill stood idle. The court held that damages for breach of contract are limited to losses arising naturally from the breach, or those in the contemplation of both parties when they made the contract. The rule is reflected in Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act.
Reflected in Section 73 of the Contract Act.
Quick check: Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) is the leading case on:
Consideration
Offer and acceptance
Mistake
Remoteness of damages
Answer: D.
1863
Taylor v. Caldwell
The music hall fire
A music hall hired for concerts burned down before the dates. The court held the contract discharged, because its performance depended on the continued existence of the hall. It is the foundation of the doctrine of frustration in English law.
1903
Krell v. Henry
The Coronation cases
Henry hired a flat in Pall Mall to watch the coronation procession of Edward VII, which was cancelled when the King fell ill. The Court of Appeal held the contract frustrated, because the viewing of the procession was the foundation of the contract.
221 more entries under this heading
Adams v. Lindsell · The postal rule
Felthouse v. Bindley · Silence is not acceptance
Tweddle v. Atkinson · Privity of contract
Central London Property Trust v. High Trees House · Promissory estoppel
Donoghue v. Stevenson · The snail in the bottle
Rylands v. Fletcher · Strict liability
Ashby v. White · Where there is a right, there is a remedy
Gloucester Grammar School Case · Loss without legal injury
Hedley Byrne v. Heller · Negligent misstatement
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee · The standard for doctors
Caparo Industries v. Dickman · The three-stage duty test
R v. Dudley and Stephens · Necessity is no defence to murder
M'Naghten's Case · The insanity rules
Woolmington v. DPP · The golden thread
R v. R · Marital rape in England
Entick v. Carrington · No power without law
Somerset v. Stewart · No slavery on English soil
Bushell's Case · Juries cannot be punished for their verdicts
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation · Unreasonableness
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) · Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
Ridge v. Baldwin · The right to be heard
Pepper v. Hart · Reading Hansard
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame · EU law over an Act of Parliament
R (Miller) v. Secretary of State (Miller I and II) · Brexit and prorogation
Marbury v. Madison · The birth of judicial review
Dred Scott v. Sandford · The worst decision
Plessy v. Ferguson · "Separate but equal"
Lochner v. New York · The "Lochner era"
Brown v. Board of Education · Ending school segregation
Gideon v. Wainwright · A lawyer for every accused
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Actual malice
Miranda v. Arizona · "You have the right to remain silent"
Roe v. Wade (1973) and Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) · Abortion in the US
United States v. Nixon · No one is above the law
Obergefell v. Hodges · Marriage equality in the US
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard · Race-conscious admissions ended
Trump v. United States · Presidential immunity
Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) · The end of terra nullius
S v. Makwanyane · South Africa abolishes the death penalty
Government of South Africa v. Grootboom · The right to housing
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh · Basic structure travels to Dhaka
State v. Dosso · Kelsen in Pakistan
The S.S. Lotus Case (France v. Turkey) · What is not prohibited is permitted
Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland) · Full reparation
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania) · The ICJ's first case
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN · The UN has legal personality
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) · The genuine link
Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) · India's first ICJ case
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases · How custom is formed
Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain) · Erga omnes obligations
Nicaragua v. United States · Force and intervention
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons · An advisory opinion
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory · An advisory opinion