General Question

sarahjane90's avatar

Why will you seldom need to refer to the Carbolic Smoke Ball case? (UK legal)

Asked by sarahjane90 (1805points) October 31st, 2010

I am attempting to answer this question. However I am finding myself stumped. Because this case (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co) [1893] is an authority on the reward type of advertisement, where a unilateral offer may be created, I’m finding it hard to explain why you wouldn’t cite this case often!

If anyone could help me out, it would be greatly appreciated!

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

5 Answers

Seaofclouds's avatar

I don’t know anything about it, but were there any cases after that one or law changes after that that made it so that that particular case is no longer valid?

Lightlyseared's avatar

The case remains relevant today however there has been a number of laws passed since that provide additional statutory remedies to false or misleading advertising.

sarahjane90's avatar

Thanks, I will look into those cases further.

iamthemob's avatar

I think that @Lightlyseared is right. You won’t refer to it because the defenses available to such type of advertising have increased because of additional statutory penalties. The case is still relevant because it covers pretty much all the basics of contract law as it stands today, and therefore is a great teaching tool and all the law and defenses available at that time are still relevant today…it’s just outdated because of the newly available defenses.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

I suspect that advertising agencies are also aware of the laws and would advise accordingly if a client suggested including some type of guarantee.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther