Discuss what constitute lawful Consideration and lawful objects under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 along with the case law: Carlill vs. carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a valid contract requires lawful consideration and lawful objects. Let's explore what constitutes lawful consideration and lawful objects:

1. Lawful Consideration:
   Lawful consideration refers to something of value exchanged between parties to a contract. It can be in the form of money, goods, services, or promises to do or abstain from doing something. For consideration to be lawful, it must meet certain criteria:

   • It must be given at the desire or request of the promisor.
   • It can be either past, present, or future, but it must be something that has some value in the eyes of the law.
   • It must not be illegal, immoral, or against public policy.

2. Lawful Objects:
   Lawful objects refer to the purpose or objective for which the contract is formed. For a contract to be valid, its object must be lawful. The object of a contract is considered lawful if:

   • It is not expressly declared to be illegal or void by law.
   • It is not fraudulent, immoral, or opposed to public policy.
   • It does not involve an act that is forbidden by law or one that would defeat the provisions of any law.
   • It does not involve injury to the person or property of another party.

Now, let's discuss the case law of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company:

In the case of Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) 1 QB 256, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a product called the "smoke ball" as a preventive measure against influenza and other diseases. The company claimed that anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted influenza would be entitled to receive a reward of £100. To demonstrate the company's confidence in its product, it deposited £1,000 with the Alliance Bank as evidence of its sincerity.

Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as directed but still contracted influenza. She subsequently sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to claim the £100 reward. The company argued that there was no valid contract as there was no consideration provided by Mrs. Carlill.

The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, holding that the company's advertisement constituted a unilateral offer that Mrs. Carlill had accepted by performing the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Mrs. Carlill's act of using the smoke ball as directed amounted to valid consideration, as it was done in response to the company's promise of a reward. The court held that the promise to pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using the smoke ball was a unilateral contract, and Mrs. Carlill had fulfilled the conditions of the contract by using the smoke ball as directed.

This case is significant as it established the principle that unilateral contracts, where one party makes an offer to the public, can be binding if the conditions of the offer are fulfilled by the offeree. It also illustrates the importance of lawful consideration and the enforceability of promises made in advertisements under certain circumstances.