The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co the advertisement was held to be a unilateral contract because it contained a clear promise to pay £100 to anyone who performed the specified conditions, and the defendant’s deposit of £100 in a bank showed an intention to be bound.

Relevant knowledge points and concepts:
- Offer versus invitation to treat: an offer is a definite promise capable of acceptance; an invitation to treat invites negotiation.
- Unilateral contract: an offer made to the world at large which is accepted by performance of the requested act (no need for prior communication of acceptance).
- Consideration and intention to create legal relations: there must be either some consideration and evidence the promisor intended legal consequences.

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Identify the content of the advertisement: it promised £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted influenza.
2. Determine whether the ad was an offer: the promise was definite (sum of money, specific condition) and not mere sales puff; the deposit in bank demonstrated seriousness and intention to be legally bound.
3. Acceptance by performance: Mrs Carlill used the smoke ball according to instructions and nevertheless contracted influenza; by performing the conditions she accepted the offer.
4. Consideration: her acts (buying and using the device as instructed) were sufficient consideration for the promise.
5. Result: a binding unilateral contract arose and the company was liable to pay.

Why the correct answer is correct:
- The House of Lords treated the ad as an offer to the world, creating a unilateral contract accepted by performance. Communication of acceptance was unnecessary because performance was the method prescribed for acceptance.

Why the other options are incorrect:
- Invitation to Treat: incorrect because an invitation to treat lacks the definite promise and cannot be accepted by mere performance; the ad contained a definite promise to pay.
- Mere puff: incorrect because the ad made a specific, measurable promise (£100) and the bank deposit evidenced seriousness; a puff is vague and extravagant, not backed by concrete terms.
- General Inquiry: incorrect because the ad was not asking for information or seeking offers; it was making a promise.

Conclusion: the advertisement was a unilateral contract (option a), which matches the provided answer.

The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a单项选择题

类似问题

Which case established the rule that once an offer is countered, it can no longer be accepted?

The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:

The case of Harvey v Facey established that

The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that

For acceptance to be valid, it must

Which of the following statements is always TRUE?

Anne found the home of her dreams on Friday and made an offer on it that day. The seller of the home accepted her offer on Tuesday. Choose the most correct statement:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单