Multiple Choice
In the classic case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, the defendants manufactured a product they claimed would protect against influenza. The company advertised that it would pay a specific sum of money to anyone who contracted influenza while using their product, and put money on deposit to demonstrate their sincerity. When Mrs. Carlill claimed the money, the company argued that these statements were not intended to be taken seriously. What did the Court decide?
A) There was intention because a reasonable person would have thought that the advertisement was serious.
B) There was no intention because the company did not intend for the statements to be taken seriously.
C) There was no intention because the claims made by the company were not put into a standard form agreement.
D) There was intention because Mrs. Carlill took the advertisement seriously.
E) Intention is irrelevant to whether or not a contract is valid.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q4: Parents are responsible for their children's actions
Q5: Which of the following is true with
Q7: (Modify this question for your jurisdiction.) Bill,
Q10: When John bought a car from his
Q11: Which of the following contracts is void?<br>A)
Q12: Clem had wanted a piano for a
Q14: Which one of the following is an
Q22: All contracts to restrict competition are void.
Q34: Why was the Statute of Frauds originally
Q58: Joe advertised his house for sale,and Sam