Business Law : Case Studies

Balfour Vs. Balfour: Mr. Balfour carrying on business in ceylon promised his wife Mrs.Balfour living in England to pay her a monthly allowance so long as she cannot come over to Ceylon for reasons of health. It was held Mrs. Balfour cannot enforce the obligation, as from the contract, it appears that there was no intention to give rise to a legal obligaton.

Harvey Vs. Facey: Harvey telephoned to Facey asking the latter to inform him whether he would sell Bumper Hall Pen and if so, at what price. Facey informed Harvey that the lowest price was $900 without stating that he was willing to sell at that price. Harvey informed Facey that he would buy at that price. Facey gave no reply to the telegram. It was held that there was no contract because there was no offer from Facey to Harvey.

Lalman Shukla Vs. Gauri Dutt:Gauri Dutt had sent his Munim Lalman to find out his nephew who had absconded from the house. Later on, Gauri Dutt announced a reward of Rs.501 to anyone who might find the boy. The Plaintiff Lalman found the boy and after some time claimed the reward on the ground that he had accepted the offer of the defendant by acting in the manned prescribed by the plaintiff and performed the work for which the reward was declared. It was held that Lalman cannot claim the reward as it was not based on any binding contract, because Lalman had no knowledge of the existence of an offer when he found the boy.

Brogden Vs. Metropolitan Railway Co.: A draft agreement relating to the supply of coal was sent to the Manager of a Railway company for his acceptance. The Manager wrote the words "Approved" on the agreement but by oversight, the document remained in the drawer. It was held that there was no contract. Acceptance and Intimation of acceptance are both necessary to result in a binding contract.

Henderson Vs. Stevenson: The Plaintiff used the defendant company for damages for loss of his luggage on account of the negligence of the servants of the company. The Company's defence as that it was protected by the conditions of the contract which were printed on the back of the ticket. The front side of the ticket showed simply names of the places. On the back of the ticket, it was printed in small types that the company was not liable for the loss to the passengers due to the negligence of the servants of the company. It was held that the plaintiff had no reasonable or sufficient notice of conditions and as such he could recover.

 

Carlill Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. : The Defendant company offered by an advertisement a reward of $100 to any person who would contract influenza or similar ailments, after using their smoke ball according to the directions prescribed by the company. It was further added in the advertisement that the company had deposited $1000 with the Alliance Bank to show sincerity of the company. Mrs. Carlill bought the smoke balls and used them for a fortnight as directed, but she contracted influenza. and sued the company for recovery of the advertised reward. It was held that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to recover that the advertisement which was not a mere statement of intention to give reward, a definite proposal became an agreement on having been accepted by Mrs. Carlill. It was further held that though the offer was made to the whole world, it was accepted by a specified person. Though the company had raised the objection that acceptance was not communicated, it was observed that by the terms of the offer, the company had waived communication of acceptance. Acceptance of the offer by conduct does not require any formal acceptance.