RULE A party conveying an abstract idea can prevail in an action to recover

Rule a party conveying an abstract idea can prevail

This preview shows page 19 - 22 out of 31 pages.

RULE: A party conveying an abstract idea can prevail in an action to recover compensation for the idea only if he has obtained an express promise to pay, or, based on the circumstances preceding and attending disclosure, together with the conduct of the offeree acting with knowledge of the circumstances, has obtained an implied promise to pay. COMMUNICATION RULE: Actual communication is the criteria. Withdrawing it right before acceptance happens then there is no contract. It would’ve been communicated seconds after the mailing. If the agent knows, the principal knows, so that is sufficient. Whichever comes first is what will prevail
Image of page 19
ACCEPTANCE NOT BY SILENCE CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO. (1893) PROMISE: Express promise to pay 100 in certain events “100 reward will be paid by Carbollic to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball” “1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter” CONSTRUCTION OF THE AD: 1. May be limited to persons catching the increasing epidemic 2. A person may be warranted free from catching the epidemic while using the remedy after use of it for two weeks 3. The reward is offered to any person who contracts the epidemic within reasonable time after having used the smoke ball CONSIDERATION: Inconvenience – of having to use the smoke ball for two weeks three times a day. Benefit money gain likely to accrue to the company by the enhanced sale of the smoke balls. FACTS Carbolic manufactured the Carbolic Smoke Ball and advertised it as a preventative measure against influenza. Carbolic placed ad in several newspapers. P purchased a Carbolic Smoke Ball and later contracted influenza despite using the ball as directed. P brought suit to recover. COMMUNICATION: Letters from P to company: First letter : no response; Second/third letter : threatening lawsuit. Response to third letter : the reward of 100 has been claimed by many persons that haven’t actually bought the smokeball; they are changing the terms and making them come in three times a week, because they are imputing fraud and its one of the reasons the court is clear that they will find in favor of Louisa because they are peddling of highly dubious remedy and acting in a scrulious manner. HOLDING: The ad constitutes an offer that was validly accepted by Carlill, thus creating a binding contract supported by consideration. By performance of the condition by using these smoke balls for two weeks three times a day is an acceptance of the offer and reward should be granted. RULE: A general advertisement of an award constitutes an offer that is capable of being accepted and binding the offeror in a valid contract, provided at least contemporaneous notice and some consideration are present.
Image of page 20
CORINTHIAN V LEDERLE (1989) CONTRACT: 19 th – interoffice memo sent out which stipulates and notifies of the price hike; price list; same day P places 1000 vile order = solicitation of offer is not actually an offer. 20 th
Image of page 21
Image of page 22

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 31 pages?

  • Summer '11
  • Jacobson
  • The Land, promise, promisor, International commercial Contract

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture