Target Exam

CUET

Subject

Legal Studies

Chapter

Topics of Law

Question:

In the case of general offer, there is no need for communicating acceptance to the offeror was held in:

Options:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)

Timothy v. Mchill Water Heat Co. (1897)

Correct Answer:

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

Explanation:

The correct answer is Option (1) → Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893): In this landmark case, the court held that a general offer can be accepted by anyone who performs the conditions of the offer, without the need for prior communication of acceptance to the offeror. The case involved a company that advertised a product claiming to prevent influenza and promised to pay £100 to anyone who contracted the disease after using it. When Mrs. Carlill used the product and still got sick, the court ruled in her favor, establishing that her use of the product constituted acceptance of the offer.

Brief overview of the other cases:

  • Balfour v. Balfour (1919): This case dealt with a domestic agreement between a husband and wife and clarified that not all agreements are intended to create legal relations.

  • Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880): In this case, the plaintiff constructed some shops at the request of the District Collector in a town. The constructed shops were given on rent for doing business to the defendant, the shopkeeper. The defendant, apart from the rent, promised to give 5% commission to the plaintiff on all articles sold through the shop in consideration of the huge amount spent by the plaintiff in the construction of the building. The defendant failed to pay the commission and the plaintiff initiated action to recover the commission. The Court rejected the action of the plaintiff on the ground that the construction of shop was done at the desire of the District Collector and not on the desire of the defendant and hence there was no consideration to give commission. Accordingly, there is no valid contract to pay commission to the plaintiff.

  • Timothy v. McGill Water Heat Co. (1897): This case involved a unilateral contract, but it did not specifically address the issue of whether acceptance must be communicated in the case of a general offer.