5 Landmark Cases On Contract Law

              5 Landmark Cases On Contract Law

                                                                                            Author :-    Annu Ranjan,  BA.LLB.(2nd year), a Student of IMS Law College, Noida.

1) CARLILL V. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY (1893)

         (Can general offer lead to contract?)

In this case, the company said in the advertisement that it would pay £100 to anyone who got influenza after using smoke balls three times a day for two weeks. To prove its sincerity, the company transferred the money to a bank account. 

The plaintiff, Mrs Carlill referred to the advertisement and used smoke balls according to the way mentioned in it. She still came down with the influenza. 

She sued the company for her claim because they refused to pay her. The company refused to pay on the grounds that there was no contract between it and the complainant. 

It was found that the contract between the plaintiff and the company was formed when the plaintiff purchased the smoke pellets and used them according to the instructions, so company is liable to pay the amount.         

2)LALMAN SHUKLA V. GAURI DUTT   (1913)         

        (Communication of offer is necessary)

In this case, the nephew of the accused went missing and the complainant, who was the servant of the accused, was sent to Hardwar to search for him. 

After filing the complaint, the respondent made a public offer by offering an amount of Rs 501 to whoever finds the missing boy. The complainant found the boy and take him home. The plaintiff claimed the payment of the reward money previously offered on finding the boy.

The plaintiff in this case was unaware of the reward prior to performing the act. He only came to know about it later, in which case there was no possibility of accepting the offer. There was therefore no contract. 

It was held that the appellant was not entitled to any cash reward as his sole duty was to find the missing boy as the respondent's servant and the reward was announced after dispatch.

3)FELTHOUSE V. BINDLEY (1862)

     (Acceptance should be communicated.)

In this case, Mr. Felthouse, wanted to purchase a horse from his nephew, but the price offered for the horse was lower than the price at which his nephew was willing to sell it. The horse was therefore still in his possession. 

The uncle made his offer known in a letter in which he wrote: "If I never hear from him again, I will claim the horse as my own for £30.15." The nephew was unable to respond to the letter because he was busy with an auction on his farm. Although he asked the auctioneer, Mr. Bindley, not to auction the horses, he did so by mistake.

Mr Felthouse then sued the defendant for conversion of his estate. The defendant argued that the horse was not actually the property of Felthouse, as there was no contract between them at the time of the auction, as Mr Felthouse's offer was not accepted by his nephew and his silence cannot be regarded as acceptance of the offer. So mere silence would not let the acceptance of the offer.

4) BALFOUR V. BALFOUR  (1919)

      (Agreement, not contract)

In this case, the Balfour, who had lived together as a married couple in Sri Lanka, were vacationing in England. During this time Mrs Balfour developed rheumatoid arthritis.

The doctor advised Ms Balfour to stay in England because he believed Sri Lanka's climate could worsen her health.

Before returning to Sri Lanka, Mr Balfour promised to send her £30 a month. During her absence, the parties split and went their separate ways.

In this case it was held that Mr Balfour's promise to pay a monthly sum of £30 did not constitute a contract as neither party intended to create a legal relationship.

5)KEDARNATH V. GORIE MOHAMMAD (1886)

For the construction of Howrah Town Hall, the Howrah Municipal Commissioner began collecting necessary funds through public donations. 

Defendants also promised to pay 100 by registering for this purpose in the subscription register. 

The secretary of the town hall construction commission commissioned a contractor to build the town hall on the basis of the agreed agreements and was therefore held responsible. The defendant refused to pay the subscription fee. 

It was found that the appointment of a contractor and the commencement of construction work based on the drawing commitment constituted sufficient consideration. Therefore, he was liable to pay this amount as part of the obligation under the promise.

                                                  

                                                           -----------------