3 proposal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

3 proposal

on

  • 202 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
202
Views on SlideShare
202
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

3 proposal 3 proposal Presentation Transcript

  • Proposal-Cases SUJITH
  • To another..  S Magnes v CIT [AIR 1958 Bom 467]  Mr. Magnus entered into a partnership agreement with his wife.  Later it was agreed that Mrs. Magnus will devote her time and attention to the business for a remuneration of Rs 1000 per month.  Mr. Magnus claimed income tax exemption for this amount.  Court rejected the contention stating that there can not be a contract by one person to himself or herself.
  • General offer  Har BhaJan Lal v Har Charan Lal [AIR 1925 All 539]  A young boy ran away from his fathers home. The father eventually issued a pamphlet, offering a reward.  “anybody who finds trace of the boy and brings him home, will get Rs 500.”  The plaintiff saw the boy at Bareilly Junction and took him to the Railway police and sent a telegram to the boys father.
  •  The question is whether he had substantially fulfilled the terms offered.  The court held that:   The real promise in the pamphlet was “I will pay Rs500 to any one who finds my son and brings him home.” the pamphlet was an offer to the whole world and the plaintiff substantially performed the condition.
  • Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256  The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases.
  •  £100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, 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, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.
  •  Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu  She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company lost its argument at the Queen's Bench. It appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs Carlill.
  •  Among the reasons given by the three judges were:  (1) that the advertisement was a unilateral offer to the whole world  (2) that satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer  (3) that purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted good consideration, because it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the advert was a clear benefit to Carbolic  (4) that the company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound.