Match List-I with List-II.

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

A-IV, B-III, C-I, D-II

In an English case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893, 1 4B 256), the company was the manufacturer of a medicine called smoke ball which was used for the treatment of influenza. The company believed that the medicine completely cured influenza. An advertisement was put up offering a reward of …100 to anyone who got influenza again after using the smoke ball medicine continuously for fifteen days. In the advertisement, it was also stated that …1000 was deposited in a Bank, namely, Alliance Bank for paying the reward if such situation arose. Seeing the advertisement, Mrs. Carlill bought the smoke ball medicine and used it as per the directions provided. Mrs. Carlill got a fresh episode of influenza. Mrs. Carlill sued the company for the reward of …100. The manufacturing company stated that: (1) there was no intention to enter into a legal relationship with anyone through the advertisement, and the advertisement was put up only to boost the marketing of the smoke ball medicine; (2) the advertisement was not an offer as it was not made to any particular person and an offer cannot be made to the public at large or to the whole world; (3) acceptance by the offeree had not been communicated, and so there was no binding contract. The Court rejected these contentions of the company and allowed Mrs. Carlill's claim for …100. The Court also stated that deposit of …1000 in the Alliance Bank by the smoke ball company was evidence that the company had real intention to enter into a legal relationship with anyone who accepted the offer. An offer can also be made to the world at large. It is called a general offer and it is valid. In the case of general offer, there is no need for communicating acceptance to the offeror. Merely fulfilling the conditions of the offer itself is treated as acceptance to create a contract.

The duty of care principle (negligence) can be explained by citing an actual case law. In a 1932 English case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant Donoghue drank a soft drink manufactured by the defendant Stevenson. The drink had a decomposed snail in the bottle that made the claimant ill. The court held that the manufacturer owed duty of care to those who are 'reasonably foreseeable' to be affected by the product. So the duty of care is owed to those whom one can reasonably foresee as being potentially harmed. 

In India, a related principle of Absolute Liability was introduced by the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the two instances of gas leaks from factories injuring many. The first case was about the infamous Bhopal gas leak disaster of 1984 where a factory of the Union Carbide Corporation located in Bhopal had a major leakage of the gas mythyl isocynate that killed 2260 and injured around 600,000 people. In the second incident of 1985 in Delhi, a factory of the Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries leaked oleum gas that killed one person that had few others hospitalized and created huge panic among the residents. 

Forms of confession: A confession may occur in many forms. When it is made to the court itself then it will be called judicial confession, and when it is made to anybody outside the court, it will be called extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard by another. For example, in Sahoo v. State of U.P. the accused who was charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the day of the murder going out of the house, saying words to the effect, "I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels." The statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for it is not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to some other person.