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.
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
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
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
 EWCA Civ 1,  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
£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent
Street, showing our sincerity in the matter.
advertisement, bought one of the balls and used three
times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the
She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball
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
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.