Early Position: Weeks v. Tybald (1605)
Facts
- Mr. Weeks pursued marriage with Mr. Tybald’s daughter.
- Tybald allegedly said: “I will give you £100 if you marry my daughter.”
- Weeks treated this as a binding promise and went to court.
Legal Issue
- Could Tybald’s statement be treated as a legally enforceable contract?
- Was it a binding offer, or just a social remark?
Judgment
- King’s Bench held: No binding contract.
- Words were mere “merriment”, not a serious promise.
- No intention to create legal relations.
- A valid contract requires:
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
- Intention to create legal relations
Principle Established
- Not every promise is enforceable.
- Contracts require intention to be bound.
- Early courts ruled that general offers were invalid — an offer had to be made to a specific person or body.
Impact
- From 1605 until 1893, the law followed: “There can be no general offer.”
Shift in Law: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)
Facts
- Company advertised: Anyone using their smoke ball as directed, but still catching influenza, would receive £100 compensation.
- Mrs. Carlill used the product, got flu, and claimed £100.
- Company argued: Advertisement = sales gimmick, not contract.
Legal Issue
- Was the advertisement a valid binding offer or just puffery?
- Could Mrs. Carlill enforce it?
Judgment (Court of Appeal)
- Binding contract existed.
- Deposit of £1,000 in bank proved intention to be bound.
- Advertisement = unilateral offer to the world.
- Acceptance = by performance (using smoke ball as directed).
Principle Established
- Unilateral contracts are valid.
- General offers (to the public at large) can be binding if:
- There is clear intention to be bound.
- Acceptance occurs through performance of conditions.
Notes
- Deposit proved seriousness of reward.
- Company could not argue “mere puff” while showing intention to pay.
- No exclusion for pharmacy purchases mentioned.
- No extra training for usage required → directions were sufficient.
- Consideration present: Mrs. Carlill used the product, benefiting company’s sales.
Link to Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 8, ICA, 1872
- Rooted in the Carbolic Smoke Ball case.
- “Performance of the conditions of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.”
Meaning:
- If a proposal is communicated with intent, and a person performs the conditions, it becomes a valid acceptance.
- Contract is formed with those who fulfill the conditions.
Evolution of Law on General Offers
- Weeks v. Tybald (1605):
- General offers not valid.
- Offer must be to specific party.
- Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893):
- Reversed Weeks v. Tybald.
- General offers valid if serious and performed.
- Created basis for unilateral contracts.
Key Question Answered:
- Are general offers a complete offer in themselves?
✔ Yes — performance of conditions amounts to acceptance.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Position on General Offer | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks v. Tybald | 1605 | Not valid | Offer must be specific; no social promises enforceable |
| Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball | 1893 | Valid | General offers binding if serious, acceptance by performance |
