Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co an entity of type: Thing
卡里尔诉碳酸烟球公司案（Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]EWCA Civ 1 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆））是由英格兰和威尔士上诉法院作出的一项英国合同法判决。该判决指出，包含奖励条款的广告可以构成具有约束力的，任何履行条款的人应视作承诺对其承诺。 本案主题奇特，法官（尤其是和）创造的法律具有里程碑意义。本案是英美法中最著名的案件之一。卡里尔案经常作为入门的合同案例讨论，且往往是法律系学生学习合同法时遇到的第一个案例。 该案涉及一种“石碳酸烟球”，该产品据称可以用于治疗流感。制造商的广告称，如果消费者发现该产品不起作用，将获得100英镑奖励。100磅在当时是一笔相当可观的收入。法院将该广告解释为一项要约，消费者购买使用烟球则视为对该要约的承诺。买方无需通知卖方，双方间的合同即成立。据此，法院认为该公司受到该广告的约束。上诉法院认为，成立合同的基本要素本案中全部具备，包括要约、承诺、约因以及建立法律关系的意图。
rdf:langString
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley and Bowen) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
rdf:langString
卡里尔诉碳酸烟球公司案
rdf:langString
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
xsd:integer
806313
xsd:integer
1120572233
rdf:langString
none
rdf:langString
[1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256
rdf:langString
Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
rdf:langString
Lindley, Bowen and AL Smith
rdf:langString
Advertisements, Conditions, Insurance, Offer and acceptance, Wagering contracts
rdf:langString
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley and Bowen) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract. The case concerned a flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed as an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations, and rejected a number of defenses, including puffery.
rdf:langString
卡里尔诉碳酸烟球公司案（Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]EWCA Civ 1 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆））是由英格兰和威尔士上诉法院作出的一项英国合同法判决。该判决指出，包含奖励条款的广告可以构成具有约束力的，任何履行条款的人应视作承诺对其承诺。 本案主题奇特，法官（尤其是和）创造的法律具有里程碑意义。本案是英美法中最著名的案件之一。卡里尔案经常作为入门的合同案例讨论，且往往是法律系学生学习合同法时遇到的第一个案例。 该案涉及一种“石碳酸烟球”，该产品据称可以用于治疗流感。制造商的广告称，如果消费者发现该产品不起作用，将获得100英镑奖励。100磅在当时是一笔相当可观的收入。法院将该广告解释为一项要约，消费者购买使用烟球则视为对该要约的承诺。买方无需通知卖方，双方间的合同即成立。据此，法院认为该公司受到该广告的约束。上诉法院认为，成立合同的基本要素本案中全部具备，包括要约、承诺、约因以及建立法律关系的意图。
xsd:date
1893-12-07
rdf:langString
All three Lords Justices of Appeal
rdf:langString
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
57633
