Law and society-Donoghue v. stephenson & carbonic smoke ball company... (1 Viewer)

[goan_crazy]

Can someone tell me the basic point of these two cases
CONTRACT LAW: CARLILL V. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY 1893
(pg15 heinemann text)
TORT LAW: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 1932
(heinemann text pg16)
i jus wanna include a few lines bout them in my notes in regards to tort law and contract law as a case study
thanks

 

[rific]

Um, do you mean Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) or is there a new one? The basic points behind this one is in regards to offers to the world at large and contractual obligations v puff.

I don't have the Heinemann you refer to, but they are the most important issues that people normally look at. If you want more info, just post again or PM me.

D v S, it's been a while since I've looked at this one so I'll let some one else answer and if they don't I'll look up my old notes/texts and give you something.

 

[goan_crazy]

Um, do you mean Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) or is there a new one? The basic points behind this one is in regards to offers to the world at large and contractual obligations v puff.

I don't have the Heinemann you refer to, but they are the most important issues that people normally look at. If you want more info, just post again or PM me.

D v S, it's been a while since I've looked at this one so I'll let some one else answer and if they don't I'll look up my old notes/texts and give you something.

sorry dude my bad i was meaning 1893 for Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
and Donoghue v. stevenson yea
thanks

 

[Igor]

both cases refer to civil law suits.
Donoghue v. Stevenson regards the quailty of a product and the assumed guarentee that you get what you pay for, even though at the time there was no oligation on a company or manufacturer to guarantee the product

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refers to false advertising in a way, a guarantee that the smoke ball would protect against catchin the flu, when there really was no such protection.

 

[melsc]

Can someone tell me the basic point of these two cases
CONTRACT LAW: CARLILL V. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY 1893
(pg15 heinemann text)
TORT LAW: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 1932
(heinemann text pg16)
i jus wanna include a few lines bout them in my notes in regards to tort law and contract law as a case study
thanks

Off the top of my head

CONTRACT LAW: CARLILL V. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY 1893
(pg15 heinemann text) - Basically this company promised if u used this product u would not get the flu...if u did they would give you a reward (a certain amount of money). This prsn did get the flu and they asked 4 the reward...the company said it was like a gimic and they wldnt pay...so basically it was a breech of contract

TORT LAW: DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 1932
(heinemann text pg16)
This is the gross case of the lady who drank the bottle of ginger beer and found a decomposed snail in it...its the leading case 4 tort of neiglience as the company failed to provide a duty of care...and by having an opaque bottle she couldnt see inside it...sorry abt the dodgy defintion...its off the top of my head

 

[goan_crazy]

thanks melsc

 

[melsc]

lol its not very articulate...my teacher bored us to death today going through each oif the articles on the declaration on human rights and teeling us abt them all blah!

we did DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 1932 in commerce...i will never 4got that one

 

[goan_crazy]

lol its not very articulate...my teacher bored us to death today going through each oif the articles on the declaration on human rights and teeling us abt them all blah!

we did DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 1932 in commerce...i will never 4got that one

oh fair enuf
we do it again in consumers

 

[Jonathan A]

I LOVE THE TWO CASES and have studied them in great detail.


Donoghue v Stevenson

This deals with the law of negligence.

The judge stated in order for there to be negligence, there must be:
- A duty of care owed to the plaintiff
- A breach of the duty by the defendant
- Which resulted in injury or damage to the plaintiff.

The facts are that a lady consumed ginger ale to find that there was a decomposed snail. She sued, however the issue at law was that she did not purchase the drink, how can she sue, if she is not privy to the contract? The court took negligence to a new level and allowed the claim to continue based on the three legal tests above.


Carbolic Smoke Ball

Law of Contracts in offer and acceptance

The court held that whilst advertisments are not offers in general, if the advertisement has executed consideration (that is that an offer arises when doing something for the other party in accordance with the terms), then there is a contract.

 

[Jonathan A]

both cases refer to civil law suits.
Donoghue v. Stevenson regards the quailty of a product and the assumed guarentee that you get what you pay for, even though at the time there was no oligation on a company or manufacturer to guarantee the product

.

That's not entirely correct. The case actually states if you are negligent in the preparation of a drink (the principles even go as far as unborn children) then you are liable. Has nothing to do with what you pay for, that is contract law, and the principle of 'you get what you pay for' has no bearing in law, it's a little informal marketing term if you like.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refers to false advertising in a way, a guarantee that the smoke ball would protect against catchin the flu, when there really was no such protection

Again right about the facts, however the issue came down to offer and acceptance.

 

[= Jennifer =]

damn jono you got there before me i wanted to share my tort law knowledge too

 

[melsc]

U still can

 

[Jonathan A]

damn jono you got there before me i wanted to share my tort law knowledge too

Share it.... You can throw in the famous Dictum of Lord Atkin....

 

[melsc]

Share it...

exactly we love it when our law student buddies drop by and explain things properly 2 us

 

[Lorie]

people doing workplace law should remember these cases when they do those topics.

 

[goan_crazy]

people doing workplace law should remember these cases when they do those topics.

Also consumer law, thats what im doing and I was told these are v. important cases 2

 

[Jonathan A]

Also consumer law, thats what im doing and I was told these are v. important cases 2

Indeed they are.

 

[melsc]

Do u remeber doing Donoghue v. stephenson 4 commerce??? Caveat Emptor... LOL

 

[Jonathan A]

Do u remeber doing Donoghue v. stephenson 4 commerce??? Caveat Emptor... LOL

lol, you have a good memory.

Caveat Emptor has taken on a new role, you will learn if you do consumers.

 

[melsc]

lol, you have a good memory.

Caveat Emptor has taken on a new role, you will learn if you do consumers.

I remember being totally grossed out...and knowing it was my first case stuyd..its consolled me after I found out there was no year 9 elective called legal studies LOL