ASSESSMENT COVERSHEET

Attach this coversheet as the cover for your submission. All sections must be completed.

Section A: Submission Details

Programme : DIPLOMA IN INDUSTRIAL LOGISTICS
Course Code & Name : JGD32603
Course Lecturer(s) : FARADINA BINTI AHMAD
Submission Title : ASSIGNMENT
Deadline :
Day 21 Month 4 Year 2024 Time 11:59PM
Penalties :  5% will be deducted per day to a maximum of four (4) working days, after
which the submission will not be accepted.
 Plagiarised work is an Academic Offence in University Rules & Regulations
and will be penalised accordingly.

Section B: Academic Integrity

Tick (√) each box below if you agree:

 I have read and understood the UniKL’s policy on Plagiarism in University Rules & Regulations.
 This submission is my own, unless indicated with proper referencing.
 This submission has not been previously submitted or published.
 This submission follows the requirements stated in the course.

Section C: Submission Receipt

(must be filled in manually)

Office Receipt of Submission

Date & Time of

Student Name(s)/Class Student ID(s)
Submission (stamp)
21 / 4 / 2024 MOHAMAD AMIRUL HAKIM BIN SYAKIRIN 57102222060
MUHAMMAD ZARIF ZAKWAN BIN LASMAN 57102222073
HARIZ IKHWAN BIN HAMIZULKEFLI 57102222008

Student Receipt of Submission

This is your submission receipt, the only accepted evidence that you have submitted your work. After this is
stamped by the appointed staff & filled in, cut along the dotted lines above & retain this for your record.
Date & Time of Submission Student ID(s)
Course Code Submission Title
(stamp) & Signature(s)

57102222060
21 / 4 / 2024 JGD32603 ASSIGNMENT 57102222073
57102222008

1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
2.0 Title of The Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256..........................................4
3.0 Case Discussion................................................................................................................................5
a) Analyse the facts of the case in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256....................5
b) Analyse the main issue of the case in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256...........7
c) Analyse the legal reasons behind the decisions in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB
256..............................................................................................................................................9
d) Apply the ratio decidendi in the case of Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256 to
the facts above..........................................................................................................................10
e) Distinguish whether there will be a difference between the decision if Pn Amina did not
deposit the RM500.00 into the police station...........................................................................11
4.0 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................12
5.0 Reference........................................................................................................................................13

2
1.0 Introduction

In the famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, a big question
about contracts and promises came up in a British Court. It all started with an ad by the
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, promising money to anyone who got sick after using their
product correctly. Mrs. Carlill used the smoke ball but still got sick, thus she wanted the
promised money. This case is important because it helped clear up how contracts work when
only one side makes a promise.

Instead of both sides agreeing, this case showed that sometimes doing something is enough to
accept a deal. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co set an important rule for future cases and how
ads make promises to the public. This assignment will explore the cases and to use these
cases as a guide to for this assignment.

3
2.0 Title of The Case: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.

Pn Amina has a very expensive hobby of buying expensive cats. She spent a lot of her time
and resources on her hobby. One of her favorite cats is a 1-year-old tabby called Oyen. Oyen
came from a recognized international breeder. Pn Amina has to pay dearly for Oyen and has
been keeping up maintenance on Oyen so that it will be able to join the competition in the
future.

One day, Oyen disappeared from the house. Pn Amina suspects that Oyen has been
wandering around the neighborhood and after waiting for Oyen for 24 hours, Pn Amina put
up a poster in search of her cat. In the poster, Pn Amina stated that she is willing to pay
RM500.00 to anybody who can find and return Oyen to her. She has also indicated that the
money has been deposited to their local police station as evidence of her honest intention of
paying the person who will return the cat to her.

En Karam Singh saw the poster advertisement around his neighborhood. He has seen Oyen
several times while he is out jogging at the park in the evening. Trying his luck, En Karam
Singh discovered Oyen's hide-out at the park while looking for it. He brought back the cat to
Pn Amina and Pn Amina thanked him profusely but refused to pay the money as advertised.
En Karam Singh is upset and seeks your legal opinion.

4
3.0 Case Discussion
a) Analyse the facts of the case in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256.

Similar to the Carlill case, where an ad caused a legal issue, Pn Amina’s missing cat poster
has led to a similar problem. She promised a reward for finding, just like the company
promised money if you got sick using their product. When En Karam Singh found Pn Amina
didn’t want to pay up, and now En Karam Singh is looking for legal advice. There are four 4
main points to analyze these cases :

I. Advertisement with a Promise:

Similar to Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, Pn Amina put up a poster offering a
reward for the return of the cat. This poster is similar to the advertisement made by
the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which promised a reward to anyone who used
their product according to the instructions.

II. Clear Offer:

Pn. Amina’s poster clearly states that she is willing to pay RM 500.00 to anyone who
finds and returns her cat. This offer, like the one in Carlill, is specific and leaves no
room for ambiguity.

III. Performance of Conditions:

En Karam Singh found Oyen, as advertised, and returned the cat to Pn Amina. This
action by En Karam Singh can be likened to Mrs. Carlill’s performance of using the
smoke ball according to the instructions.

IV. Intent to Create Legal Relations:

Just as the court in Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co found that the advertisement
was intended to create a legal contract, Pn Amina’s poster, with its promise of a
reward, also indicates an intention to enter into a legal agreement.

5
Based on these similarities, En Karam Singh could argue that he fulfilled the conditions of Pn
Amina’s offer by finding and returning Oyen, and therefore, he should be entitled to the RM
500.00 reward. Much like Mrs. Carlill, who successfully claimed the reward in the Carill
case, En Karam Singh could seek legal resources to enforce the promise made in the poster
advertisement.

6
b) Analyse the main issue of the case in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256.

We need to know if Pn Amina’s poster is a real offer and if Mr Karam Singh accepting it by
finding the cat. It is like Mrs. Carlill's situation when used the smoke ball in the Carlill case.
Also, we have to see if Pn. Amina’s poster really shows she wants to make a deal. If Pn
Amina doesn’t pay the reward after En Karam Singh finds the cat, it is like breaking a deal.
That is what happened in the Carlill case when the company didn’t pay the promised reward.
These points will help us understand what is happening with Pn Amina’s offer about the cat :

I. Offer and Acceptance:

The main issue revolves around whether Pn Amina’s poster constitutes a legally
binding offer and whether En Karam Singh’s action of finding and returning Oyen
constitutes acceptance of that offer. Like Carlill, where the Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company’s advertisement was held to be an offer, we need to assess if Pn Amina’s
poster contains clear terms that indicate an intention to enter into a contract.

II. Consideration:
Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between parties to a contract.
In Carlill, Mrs. Carlill’s consideration was her act of using the smoke ball as directed.
In this scenario, En Karam Singh’s consideration would be his effort and time spent in
finding and returning Oyen to Pn Amina.

III. Intention to Create Legal Relations:

Like in Carlill, where the court inferred an intention to create legal relations from the
specific terms of the advertisement, we need to determine whether Pn Amina’s poster
demonstrates a similar intention. Factors such as the specificity of the reward offer
and the indication that the money has been deposited at the local police station may
support an argument for an intention to create a legally binding agreement.

7
IV. Breach of Contract:
If Pn Amina refuses to pay the Rm 500.00 reward despite En Karam Singh’s
performance, the main issue becomes whether she has breached the contract formed
by her offer and En Karam Singh’s acceptance through performance. This parallels
the situation in Carlill, where the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was held liable for
breach of contract when they refused to pay the promised reward.

Looking at these important things will help figure out if there is a real agreement between Pn
Amina and En Karam Singh, and if Pn Amina has to give the RM 500.00 reward like she said
in the poster.

8
c) Analyse the legal reasons behind the decisions in Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893]
1QB 256.

Pn Amina stated that she is willing to pay RM500 to anybody who can find and return Oyen
to her. According to the Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, a Carbolic smoke ball was
advertised in newspapers, this company stated that it would be paid 100 pounds to any person
who contracted influenza, cold, or associated diseases after using the ball 3 times ( Lawprof
Team, 2021).

It was the same as what Pn Aminah did. This was an invitation to treat rather than an offer
because it can be anything displayed to many people, as long as there is no defined way to
choose who can accept (Omari, 2023).

But when Pn Amira indicated that the money had been deposited to their local police station
as evidence of her honest intention of paying the person who will return the cat to her. It
shows that Pn Amirah was serious, so in this case, En Karam Singh sued to recover the RM
500.00. The trial court held he was entitled to get RM500.

The same goes for the Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, they emphasized the
company’s sincerity by stating that 1000 pounds had been deposited to demonstrate their
commitment.

9
d) Apply the ratio decidendi in the case of Carlill-vs-Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1QB 256
to the facts above.

Relating the Carlill case to Pn Amina’s situation with her missing cat. In Carlill’s case, the
court made rules about permission in ads. Now, we can apply those rules to Pn Amina’s case.
If her ad didn’t mention putting money down, she might still have to pay the reward. But if
her ad did and she didn’t do it, things could change. Therefore, the Carlill case helps us
understand what might happen with Pn Amina’s promise about her cat :

I. No Deposit (No Specific Requirement):

If the advertisement didn't specify a requirement to deposit the money, Pn Amina
might still be obligated to pay the reward to En Karam Singh. The deposit was meant
to show her intention to fulfill the offer, but its absence might not invalidate the offer
itself. Pn Amina's failure to deposit the money could affect her credibility, but she
might still need to pay the reward if the offer was clear and unconditional.

II. With Deposit (Specific Requirement):

If the advertisement explicitly stated that the reward money was deposited, its absence
could impact the offer's enforceability. En Karam Singh could argue that the lack of
deposit undermines the offer's validity and trust in Pn Amina's intention. In this case,
Pn Amina's failure to meet the specific requirement might allow her to contest the
offer's enforceability and refuse to pay the reward.

In the end, the outcome depends on the advertisement's wording and conditions. If the deposit
was a crucial part of the offer, its absence could affect En Karam Singh's ability to claim the
reward. However, if the deposit wasn't critical and the offer was clear, En Karam Singh might
still have a valid claim.

10
e) Distinguish whether there will be a difference between the decision if Pn Amina did not
deposit the RM500.00 into the police station.

This is the difference between the decision if Pn Amina did not RM500 into the police
station:

Without deposit:

 Without making a deposit, Pn Amina's offer might have been perceived as less
credible.
 People might have been skeptical about willingness to or ability to pay the promised
reward.
 In the absence of a deposit, there might have been doubts about the enforceability of
the offer in a legal context.

With deposit:

 Making a deposit provided tangible evidence of Pn Amina's commitment to her offer.

 The deposit made customers feel secure, showing that Pn Amina was serious about
keeping her promise in the advertisement.
 In legal terms, the deposit demonstrated an intention by Pn Amina to be bound by the
terms of her advertisement, strengthening the case for enforceability in court.

11
4.0 Conclusion

In summary, the cases of Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 and Pn Amina’s
missing cat situation show us how complicated contract law can be, especially when it comes
to promises made in ads. By looking at key issues like making offers, agreeing to them, what
is being exchanged, and if someone breaks the deal, we can learn a lot about how contracts
work.

These cases remind us that it is important to be clear and honest when making promises and
that everyone should keep their word in agreement. In conclusion, they help us understand
how laws protect people’s rights in business deals.

12
5.0 Reference

Team, L. (2021, May 11). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256.

lawprof.co. https://lawprof.co/contract/contract-formation-cases/carlill-v-carbolic-

smoke-ball-company-1893-1-qb-256/

Omari, A. (2023, August 24). What is an Invitation to Treat in Contract Law? Lawpath.

https://lawpath.com.au/blog/what-is-an-invitation-to-treat-in-contract-law

Carlill v Carbolic [1892]. (2023, February 15). UOLLB First Class Law Notes®.

https://uollb.com/blog/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-1892-contract-law?

gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwiYOxBhC5ARIsAIvdH52p1mYSFyM2u033VuP5fq

BOfAklymwaPJi2GX9XyEhFSmm-8lppJd4aAj3uEALw_wcB

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. England and Wales Court of Appeal United Kingdom.

(n.d.). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/foreign/united-kingdom/1-q-b-256-

1893.html

13