The difference between Plaintiff and Defendant is their meaning.

The meaning of the term

“Plaintiff” is the person or a party who files a case against another person or a party in
the court of law enforcement. On the other hand, the meaning of the term “Defendant” is

the person or a party against whom the case is filed in the court of law enforcement.

 Hyde v. Wrench - Any counter offer cancels the original offer

 Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt -  Existence of a contract if there is no acceptance.
 Balfour v. Balfour - No intention to create legal relation
 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. - The advertisement constituted an offer. The deposited
monies indicated the sincerity of the offer and it was possible to make an offer to the whole
world.

Balfour v. Balfour

Brief Fact Summary: A husband promised to pay his wife a £30 per month allowance.  The wife sued
her husband to enforce the promise.

Synopsis of Rule of Law: Agreements between husband and wife to provide monies are generally not
contracts because generally the parties d[o] not intend that they should be attended by legal
consequences.

Facts: The Plaintiff and the Defendant were a married couple.  The Defendant husband and the Plaintiff
wife lived in Ceylon where the Defendant worked.  In 1915, while the Defendant was on leave, the couple
returned to England.  When it was time to return to Ceylon, the Plaintiff was advised not to return because
of her health.  Prior to the Defendant returning, he promised to send the Plaintiff £30 per month as
support.  The parties’ relationship deteriorated and the parties began living apart.  The Plaintiff brings suit
to enforce the Defendant’s promise to pay her £30 per month.  The lower court found the parties’
agreement constituted a contract.
Issue: Does the husbands promise to pay £30 per month constitute a valid contract which can be sued
upon?

Held: The court first recognized that certain forms of agreements do not reach the status of a contract. 
An agreement between a husband and wife is often times such a form of agreement.  In such
agreements, one party is give a certain sum of money on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc. basis.   This
agreement is sometimes termed an allowance.  However, these agreements are not contracts because
the “parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences.”  One reason the court is
hesitant to treat these agreements as contracts, is that there would not be enough courts to handle the
volume of cases.  Thus, here, the husband’s promise did not rise to the level of a contract.

Discussion: The court makes an interesting argument in not enforcing these types of promises.  The
court argues that if these promises are treated as contracts the flood gates will open.

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Brief Fact Summary: The Plaintiff, believing Defendant’s advertisement that its product would prevent
influenza, bought a Carbolic Smoke Ball and used it as directed from November 20, 1891 until January
17, 1892, when she caught the flu.  Plaintiff brought suit to recover the 100£, which the Court found her
entitled to recover.  Defendant appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law: This case considers whether an advertising gimmick (i.e. the promise to pay
100£ to anyone contracting influenza while using the Carbolic Smoke Ball) can be considered an express
contractual promise to pay.

Facts: The Defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of London (Defendant), placed an
advertisement in several newspapers on November 13, 1891, stating that its product, “The Carbolic
Smoke Ball”, when used three times daily, for two weeks, would prevent colds and influenza.   The makers
of the smoke ball additionally offered a 100£ reward to anyone who caught influenza using their product,
guaranteeing this reward by stating in their advertisement that they had deposited 1000£ in the bank as a
show of their sincerity.  The Plaintiff, Lilli Carlill (Plaintiff), bought a smoke ball and used it as directed.  
Several weeks after she began using the smoke ball, Plaintiff caught the flu.
Issue: Main issue at hand is whether the language in Defendant’s advertisement, regarding the 100£
reward was meant to be an express promise or, rather, a sales puff, which had no meaning whatsoever.

Held:   Plaintiff was entitled to recover 100£.

The Court acknowledges that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding payment of a
reward is generally a puff, which carries no enforceability.  In this case, however, Defendant noted the
deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as a show of their sincerity.  Because Defendant did this, the
Court found their offer to reward to be a promise, backed by their own sincerity.

Concurrence:  Defendant could argue lack of consideration, Plaintiff, in buying the Carbolic Smoke Ball
and using it as directed, provided adequate consideration through the inconvenience she experienced by
using the product.

Discussion: This case stands for the proposition that while sales puffery in advertisements is generally
not intended to create a contract with potential product buyers, in this case it did because the Defendant
elevated their language to the level of a promise, by relying on their own sincerity.

Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt

Facts of the case

In this case, the defendant Gauri Dutt’s Nephew had absconded and was nowhere to be found. After the
defendant became aware of the same, Dutt had sent all the servants in search of the missing nephew.
The plaintiff Lalman Shukla was one of the servants who had gone out in search of the nephew. The
plaintiff eventually found him and brought him back.
When Lalman Shukla had left the house to leave for Haridwar from Kanpur he was handed some money
for his railway fare and other expenses. As soon as Lalman Shukla had left the house, the defendant
announced a reward of Rs. 501 for whosoever found Dutt’s nephew. Shukla had no idea that such an
announcement was made. The plaintiff found the missing nephew and brought him back to his home in
Kanpur. Six months after the said incident occurred, Dutt sacked the plaintiff. 
After being removed from the job, the plaintiff claimed the money from the defendant and the latter denied
to pay the said remuneration. As a result the plaintiff Lalman Shukla filed a case against Gauri Dutt, his
master, for not rewarding him as he was entitled to.

Issues Raised
When the case was filed by the plaintiff in the lower court it was rejected. He then went on to file the case
at the Allahabad High Court. The issues raised are as follows:

 Whether the current situation amounts to contract?

 Whether the claim of Rs. 499 be provided or not?
 Whether the decision by the lower court was appropriate or not?

Contentions of the parties

It was strongly contended by the plaintiff that the mere performance of the act was sufficient to be
deserving of the reward attached to such performance. According to them, it was immaterial whether the
person performing the act had the knowledge of the reward associated with or not.

The defendants contended that in order to convert an offer into a convert there must be acceptance of
that contract and assent is the basic essential to constitute a contract. At the time he was tracing the boy
he was not aware of the offer and therefore had not accepted the offer which clearly doesn’t convert the
offer into a valid contract between both the parties.

It was argued that at the time he was tracing the boy, he was acting as a servant and thus fulfilling his
responsibilities and obligations which came with it and thus was sent to Hardwar from Cawnpore.

The Judgement

In the said case, the plaintiff’s appeal against the defendant Gauri Dutt was dismissed by the court.  After
analysing all the facts of the case, the honourable high court held that for creating or entering into a valid
contract there has to be knowledge and assent to the offeree made by the proposer. Here, the plaintiff did
not know the reward before performing his act. He only came to know about it later, in which case there
was no possibility of accepting the offer. Hence, there was no contract. Therefore, Lalman Shukla was not
entitled to get or claim the reward. 
Hyde v Wrench

Facts: The defendant, Mr Wrench, offered to sell the farm he owned to the complainant, Mr Hyde. He
offered to sell the property for £1,200, but this was declined by Mr Hyde. The defendant decided to write
to the complainant with another offer; this time to sell the farm to him for £1,000. He made it clear that this
would be his final offer regarding the property. In response, Mr Hyde offered £950 for the farm in his
letter. This was refused by Mr Wrench and he confirmed this with the complainant. Mr Hyde then agreed
to buy the farm for £1,000, which was the sum that had previously been offered.  However, Mr Wrench
refused to sell his farm.

Issues in Hyde v Wrench

The complainant brought an action for specific performance, claiming that as Mr Wrench refused to sell
the farm, this was a breach of contract. The issue in this case was whether there was a valid contract
between the parties and if a counter offer was made in discussions, whether the original offer would still
remain open.

Decision / Outcome of Hyde v Wrench

The court dismissed the claims and held that there was no binding contract for the farm between Mr Hyde
and Mr Wrench. It was stated that when a counter offer is made, this supersedes and destroys the
original offer. This original offer is no longer available or on the table. In this case, when Mr Hyde offered
£950, he cancelled the £1,000 offer and could not back track and accept .