Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball

Co.

R v Clarke

*OFFER CAN BE MADE TO THE

WORLD AT LARGE (PUBLIC)

*PROPOSAL MUST BE
COMMUNICATED & COMPLETE

Facts: D made an advertisement in

which they offered to pay 100 to
anyone who still suffer influenza
after taking the medicine acc to the
prescription. The P bought and used
the smoke ball but still caught
influenza. She claimed the 100 from
the D (denied) argued that the
contract cannot be made into the
entire world

Facts:
The
Australian
Gov.
advertised offer of a reward:
1000 for information leading to
arrest of murderers of two police
officers. Clarke saw offer but he
was not aware about the reward,
he was later accused of murders
and then gave information leading
to conviction of the murderers.
Clarke
was
released
and
subsequently claimed the reward.

Held: The advertisement was a

made to the whole world &
constitute as a proposal. Anyone
who consumed the medicine as
prescribed
was
said
to
have
accepted the offer. D has to pay to
the plaintiff

Held: His claimed was failed bc he

didnt aware about the offer made
by the gov. Offer can only be
accepted if party was aware offer
existed.

Coelho v The Public Services

Communication

Harris v Nickerson

*ADVERTISEMENT

*ADVERTISEMENT

D advertised a job vacancy (as

passport
officer)
in
the
newspaper. P applied the job and
he was employed by the D. After
a while, D wanted to terminate
his post on the ground he was on
probation & D has right to
terminate the post

Facts: An auctioneer made an

advertisement in the newspaper
that an auction office furniture
would be held on that particular
day. The P travelled to the auction
with the hope of purchasing some
of the furniture. However, the
auctioneer withdrew the items from
the auction. He brought an auction
for the breach of contract to recover
his expenses in attending the event.

Held: Ads= ITT. When P applied,

hes making proposal. When he
was employed, D was accepting
the proposal. Theres a valid
contract between them & D cant
simply terminate his post

Held: The advertisement of the

auction was only an ITT & not an
offer. Claim was failed.

REVOCATION OF OFFER

*GOODS
DISPLAY
Pharmaceutical
Society ofON
Great THE
SHELVES
Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd
Facts: The Boots introduced a self-service
system whereby the customer pick his desired
goods from the shelf & take them to the
counter to make the purchase. Meanwhile, the
pharmacist would be seated at the counter &
supervise the sale involving the drugs. The
Pharmaceutical Society objected the system &
alleged that the display of drugs constituted
an offer (u cant offer drugs to society,
infringe Pharmacy & Poisons Act 1933). They
considered Boots infringed the Act.

Held: The display of goods on shelves

was merely an ITT. A customer makes an
offer to buy but the pharmacists will
choose to accept or not

Fisher v Bell
*GOODS DISPLAY
IN A SHOP
Facts: The Defendant was charged
in offering flick-knives with the
price tag on it. Acc to the law, it
was an offence to offer such knife
for sale.
Held: The display of goods in a
shop was an ITT rather than an
offer. Whether the offer is
accepted or not, it depends on the
discretion of the shop owner.

Byvre
v of
Tienhoven
LOO:
Letter
Offer
LOA: Letter of Acceptance
LOR: Letter of Revocation
Facts: 1/10- D posted a LOO to P
8/10- D posted a letter of revoking the
offer
11/10- P receive LOO & sent an
acceptance by telegram on the same
day
20/10- P received the Ds LOR
Held: Revocation of offer wasnt
effective bc the P received the
revocation notice after he already
accepted the offer

HenthornOF
v Fraser
REVOCATION
OFFER
Facts: An offer was sent to the
plaintiff
by
post
requesting
acceptance within 14 days. The
offer
was
revoked
by
the
defendant
before
postal
acceptance
was
received;
however, the acceptance had
already been posted.
Held: The revocation of offer was
not effective thus the defendant
was bound to the contract
because there was an acceptance.