Carlill V Carbolic Smokeball Case Summary

To form a binding contract, Simon’s agreement must have satisfied four essential criteria as set out in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball . The judgement in the case stated that a legally binding contract is created when there has been a successful offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to be legally bound. To establish whether Simon’s potential contract with Huddersford Bookshop was legally binding, I will detail whether the contract has met these criteria.

Firstly, we must establish whether there was an offer made, and if there was, what was the offer? Simon initially saw the book advertised in the monthly catalogue for £625. It is likely that this advert was not sufficient to constitute an offer, and merely forms an invitation

This remedy is used when the monetary value of the contract cannot be determined, and therefore damages are not an appropriate remedy. In the case of Simon’s rare book, specific performance is likely to be a suitable remedy. It is used in situations where monetary value cannot be placed on the item because of its rarity. In this case, the book was very rare, and therefore it was not the value of the goods that Simon was seeking, but the opportunity to possess such a rare collectible item. The case of Falcke v Gray is applicable in this case. Falcke v Gray concerned the sale of rare Chinese vases, on which a sufficient monetary value could not be placed. The sale of the vases was forced because damages would not have been a conscionable remedy. It is arguable that the value of the book to Simon cannot be quantified because it is unlikely that another example would ever come about for sale. Therefore, there is a strong case for a specific performance remedy. Yet, the issue here is that the book was purchased successfully by Ahmed, who may also value the book highly, and believed he has successfully created a legally binding contract himself. A remedy of specific performance would mean that the book would have to be taken off Ahmed so that Simon could purchase it. Since specific performance is an equitable remedy rather than a legal one, it must adhere to the equitable maxims. The maxim ‘equity follows the law’ suggests that the court would not allow a legal contract to be broken in order to enforce specific performance as a remedy. This provides a difficult situation when advising on remedies for Simon. Therefore, it seems we must also discuss damages as potential