Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]: The Company That Won by Losing

in Case Analysis, Landmark Judgments, Study Resources

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Area of Law: Contract Law — Formation, Unilateral Offer, Acceptance by Performance, Consideration There is something almost comic about the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They lost the case. Badly. Unanimously. Three judges, not one dissent, zero sympathy. And yet, within weeks of the Court of Appeal's decision, their managing director Frederick Roe placed a new advertisement in the Illustrated London News, reframed the entire defeat as proof that the product worked, and the company continued trading. The men were rogues — Lindley LJ himself implied...

04 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Abacha v. State; 1 One Case, Two Judgments, Three Flawed Charges, and a Billion-Dollar Question Nobody Asked

Posted by Kolawole Adebowale

in Case Analysis, Landmark Judgments

Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437; (2002) 7 S.C. (Pt. I) 1 — Supreme Court of Nigeria, SC 290/2001 Area of Law: Criminal Procedure: Abuse of Process; Quashing of Criminal Information; Attorney-General's Prosecutorial Powers under Section 211, CFRN 1999 Every existing commentary on this decision covers the same ground: the conflict with Ilori, Belgore JSC's "persecution not prosecution" principle, the court's silence on State v. Ilori, the absence of a discernible standard. Good observations, all of them. But four things sit plainly in the record of this case that every existing commentary walked past without stopping. I intend to stop...

01 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Keir v Leeman (1846) 9 QB 371: When an Agreement to Drop Charges Becomes Illegal

Posted by Kolawole Adebowale

in 200 Level, Case Analysis, Educational Articles, Landmark Judgments, Law of Contract

Suppose a creditor has secured a judgment against a debtor, and in the process of enforcing it, the debtor's associates commit riot and attack a police officer. The creditor lays criminal charges. A third party then offers to pay the outstanding debt if the creditor drops the prosecution. The creditor agrees, abandons the charges, and the third party refuses to pay. Can the creditor sue to recover? That is precisely the question resolved in Keir v Leeman (1846) 9 QB 371. The answer was no. The Keir v Leeman agreement to stifle prosecution was held void as contrary to public policy,...

13 February

0 Comments

Sticky

The Defence of Accident in Nigerian Criminal Law

Posted by Kolawole Adebowale

in 200 Level, Class Notes, Criminal Law, Criminal Law, Educational Articles, Landmark Judgments

The Defence of Accident in Nigerian Criminal Law

Sometimes harm happens without anyone meaning it. A hunter shoots at an animal but hits another hunter. A friendly push leads to a fatal fall. Criminal law must separate deliberate criminals from unlucky people. Section 24 of the Criminal Code provides the defence of accident. This article explains Section 24, the difference between "unwilled acts" and "accidental events," and key cases like Timbu Kolian and Iromantu. Section 24: Two Types of Protection Section 24 is crucial for understanding criminal responsibility. It says: "Subject to the express provisions of this code relating to negligent acts and omissions, a person is not criminally responsible for an...

Case Analysis

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]: The Company That Won by Losing

Abacha v. State; 1 One Case, Two Judgments, Three Flawed Charges, and a Billion-Dollar Question Nobody Asked

Keir v Leeman (1846) 9 QB 371: When an Agreement to Drop Charges Becomes Illegal

The Defence of Accident in Nigerian Criminal Law

Join our Newsletter