Legal Vidhiya
  • Home
  • Case Laws
    • Supreme Court
      • 2010-2011
      • 2012-2013
      • 2011-2012
      • 2013-2014
      • 2015-2016
      • 2014-2015
      • 2016-2017
      • 2017-2018
      • 2018-2019
      • 2019-2020
      • 2020-2021
      • 2021-2022
      • 2022-2023
      • 2023-2024
      • 2024-2025
  • Article
  • Law As A Career!
  • Contents
    • Advocates Act, 1961
    • Administrative Law
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
    • Banking Law
    • Business Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Criminology
    • Code of Civil Procedure
    • Code of Criminal Procedure
    • Cyber Law
    • Family Law
      • Muslim Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Law of Evidence
    • Law of Tort
    • Human Rights
    • Indian Contract Act, 1872
    • International Law
    • Indian Partnership Act, 1932
    • Intellectual Property Rights
    • Interpretation of Statues
    • Jurisprudence
    • Juvenile Justice Act
    • Medical Law
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
    • Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace
    • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
    • NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
    • Property Law
    • Right to Information
    • Taxation Law
    • Trademark Law
    • SPACE LAW
    • SPORTS LAW
    • Unlawful activities prevention act, 1967 (UAPA)
  • Bare Act
  • OPPORTUNITY
    • Internship
    • Moot
    • Call For Paper
    • Debate
    • Quiz
    • Workshop/Seminar/Webinar
    • Get Published at Legal Vidhiya
  • About
    • Advisory Board
    • HONORARY BOARD
    • Our Team
      • FOUNDER’S
      • Executive Committee
      • Core Team
  • Youtube
  • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Code of Conduct
    • Disclaimer Policy
  • Contact Us

Carlill Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Case Laws Indian Contract Act, 1872

Carlill Vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256 (CA)

This article is written by Vamakshi Pareek of BA.LL.B. 2nd Year of RNB Global University, Bikaner. Facts of the Case Issues raised before the court Contentions at the part of: Appellant-Defendant’s arguments (Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.) Thus, the advertisement was an empty boast and the aim was merely to shoot Read more

By Admin, 3 yearsDecember 21, 2022 ago

Visitor Count
3256106
Users Today : 6290
Click Here To Join Our WhatsApp Grouplogo

Hestia | Developed by ThemeIsle