Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893
Mrs Carlill sued the manufacturer of the carbolic smoke ball – a device for preventing colds and flu – which
... [Show More] had promised a reward of £100 for any one catching flu following the use of its product but then refused to pay out.
The court decided that this promise, together with Mrs Carlill’s use of the product as directed, amounted to a legally binding contract and she was entitled to the reward. The case explores many of the principles that must be present in modern day contracts, such as offer and acceptance, before we can make legally enforceable agreements between each other. Yet this most famous of cases may never have been brought at all, had Mrs Carlill not been married to a solicitor.
5. Donoghue and Stevenson, 1932
In a case originating in Scotland, Mrs Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer which allegedly contained the decomposed remains of a snail. She claimed to have suffered shock and gastroenteritis as a result. But as she had not bought the drink herself, she had no contract on which to sue. Nevertheless, the court extended the law of negligence to require reasonable care towards those likely to be affected by a person’s or company’s actions. Was there really a snail? We don’t know for sure, as Mr Stevenson died before the evidence could be heard.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 1969
To be guilty of a criminal offence, there often needs to be unlawful act accompanied by a guilty state of mind, such as a criminal intent. So, having accidentally driven his car onto a policeman’s foot, did Mr Fagan commit an assault when he decided not to remove it?
Mr Fagan suggested not because he had no criminal intent at the time the car first went on to the foot, but the court held that deciding to leave the car there was a combination of act and intention, which meant he was guilty of the offence.
R v R, 1991
The law is constantly evolving to meet changing social attitudes. In this case, the House of Lords swept away the common law rule that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. The previous rule was based on a 1736 pronouncement that:
By their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up to her husband, consent which she cannot retract.
The House of Lords ruled that for modern times, marriage is a partnership of equals and any other suggestion was “quite unacceptable”. [Show Less]