#carbolic smoke ball | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

isfjmel-phleg · 1 year

Text

October 2022 Books

Small Spaces and Dead Voices by Katherine Arden

Fantastic creepiness and atmosphere with likeable characters. I look forward to reading the rest of the series.

Emmy and the Home for Troubled Girls by Lynne Jonell

This was another case of "middle-grade sequel that isn't half as captivating as its predecessor."

Spineless by Samantha San Miguel

I stumbled across this one on Goodreads and was interested because it's set around the turn of the century and features an asthmatic protagonist. I've got one too and was curious how that in particular would be handled. San Miguel has done her research; her protagonist uses a carbolic smoke ball (a type of early inhaler introduced in the 1880s) and sometimes experiences hallucinations from his medication, which implies he takes stramonium. Although I don't think the term "rescue inhaler" was in use at this time, otherwise it's a reasonably accurate portrayal.

The story was enjoyable too, and I like the characters. Algie Emsworth (a very Wodehousian name for a boy who isn't anything like a Wodehouse character!) is a nice kid with a good arc. The themes of compassion and understanding for all, irrespective of whom one likes or dislikes, hold up well. The plot's maybe a bit sensational, but it's a fun read.

Artificial Condition, Rogue Protocol, Exit Strategy, and Network Effect by Martha Wells

No idea what happened in these books. I am just following Murderbot around appreciatively.

Before Oz: Juvenile Fantasy Stories from Nineteenth-Century America by Mark I. West

Early American fantasy stories that offer a glimpse into what was available before the Oz series was written. Interesting historically, but it's easy to see how innovative the Oz series was and why it's held up when the others have been forgotten.

Nightbooks by J. A. White

Partially a clever retelling of "Hansel and Gretel," partially an exploration of the art of storytelling. Creepy and riveting.

And I also read a lot of comics, listed here in roughly the order read. I'm slowly slogging through as much (significant) material as I can for each of the Robins, arbitrarily starting backward. Possibly of interest to you, @brown-little-robin.

Red Robin by Christopher Yost and Fabian Nicieza

The first twelve issues in particular are quite good in their character development! I need to reread to fully absorb, but I did enjoy it a lot.

Superman Smashes the Klan by Gene Luen Yang

Really layered for a middle-grade comic. Yang weaves issues of racism and prejudice in with characterization of a Superman who's still early in his career and unconsciously repressing some of his powers to blend in better among people who aren't accepting of anyone different, and the result is well-executed. The 1940s setting is great too (albeit with a few minor inaccuracies, like the use of "Ms."), and was that a cameo of the Graysons I spotted at a circus that a young Clark goes to?

Batman & Robin by Grant Morrison

I find I am less fond of Morrison's stories, which set up interesting characterization and dynamics but get sidetracked a bit too much with Edginess. This comic is about Dick and Damian's working together during Bruce's apparent death, and I like their interactions! Just wish it got explored more.

Batman and Robin by Peter J. Tomasi

Tomasi, on the other hand, is more to my taste in emphasizing relationships. Bruce and Damian's father-son relationship is at the core of this series, and I appreciated that.

Robin Son of Batman by Patrick Gleason

This series was wild. I don't know what to make of it.

Batman: A Lonely Place of Dying by Marv Wolfman

This is the storyline that introduces Tim. I'm used to him as a protagonist whose thoughts we are in on; here he's initially a mysterious figure! We're introduced to him from Dick's POV first, and it takes a long time for him to even reveal his name--not that he isn't asked about it, multiple times, but he keeps brushing the question aside as if his identity doesn't matter--which says a lot about his character.

Robin (2021) by Joshua Williamson

I wasn't able to fully catch up on this series since not all the newest issues are available through the service I'm using, but what I did read...yikes. Someone needs to send this kid back home to his dad and get them to work things out. Please.

(But I am quite amused by the fact that Damian throughout is reading manga. Fluffy, romantic manga. Bless his heart.)

(Various issues of other things featuring Damian, including his stint as [self-appointed] leader of the Teen Titans. Poor writing choices were made. Character development that should have happened did not happen. Character...worsening? did happen.)

Detective Comics: Rite of Passage and Batman: Identity Crisis by Alan Grant

More early appearances of Tim, in which his mother dies and his father is critically injured, and an act of heroism leads to his finally taking on the role of Robin.

*Irrelevant to anything but interesting to me: in Rite of Passage, a character smokes stramonium as a treatment for asthma, and Batman recognizes the substance by smell. Apparently this treatment was still a thing in the late 1980s?

Robin (1991), Robin II, and Robin III by Chuck Dixon

More early Tim! I love him. He uses a situation he's grappling with as Robin as a scenario for his not!D&D group, they point out a solution, he suddenly needs to leave, and everyone's convinced he's weird. What a guy. Let him sleep, please.

#random personal stuff

10 notes · View notes

lillibetbunny · 8 months

Text

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

what happened?

In an advertisement, Carbolic Smock Ball Co stated that any person who purchased and used their product properly according to instructions, but still contracted influenza would be entitled to a £100 reward. Mrs Carlill was presumably tempted by the advertisement and bought a smoke ball. However, she contacted influence despite following the instructions, and thus sued the company. Carbolic Smock Ball Co argued that they could not be bound by the advert as it was merely an advertising gimmick, a sales puff that wasn't there true intent.

issue

was the promise of the £100 reward legally binding?

result

the court ruled in favour of Mrs Carlill, yay!

why do we need to learn this?

this case shows the example of an unilateral contract. it highlights the importance of clear and straightforward advertisement in the formation of contract.

1 note · View note

legal-lover · 2 years

Text

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball 1893

facts: D (carbolic smoke ball) placed an advertisement in a newspaper concerning their products, stating that any person who purchased their product and used it accordingly to instructions but still contracted influenza would be entitled to £100. The company further demonstrated its sincerity by placing £1000 in a bank account to act as a reward. C (Mrs Carlill) bought the smoke ball and despite proper use, contracted influenza and attempted to claim the £100. D contented that the advert was an invitement to treat rather than an offer to enter into a contract, as it was mere “puff” and the offer couldn't have been made “to the world”. As C had not provided acceptance and there was no consideration, the issue lies whether the advert was an offer or an invitation to treat.

issues: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT

Held:

The court of appeal found FOR C, as the advert amounted to the offer for a Unilateral contract by D.

by completing the instructions (Mrs Carlill did not intend to get Influenza and used the products to prevent it) accordingly, it provided acceptance.

The proper use of the balls was also determined as consideration, so all aspects of a contract have been fulfilled.

The court further found that as D’s advert claimed sincerity through reserving £1000, it negated the company’s assertion of lacking intent. Moreover, an offer could indeed be made to the whole world.

Overall, D’s product advertisement was an offer due to the actions taken not only by C (use of ball properly, purchase of ball) but also by D (demonstrating sincerity of £1000 reserve)

-------------

my own thoughts on this was how by following instructions of a particular product, you are entering into a contract as it constitutes as acceptance and consideration. Furthermore, the fact that D has set aside money means that they did in fact intent to pay in case someone contracted influenza. If it was only an invitation to treat that they wouldn't have needed to pay the fine, and so they wouldn't have needed to set aside the money.

Hope this helped!

This is one of the cases vital to a law degree in the topic of contract law! good to start learning it ahead of time!

#law #lawcases #legal-lover #student #law studyblr #carlill #carbolicsmokeball #legalcases #fyp #viiral

1 note · View note

hier-stehe-ich · 4 years

Text

Stole the joke from Twitter, but as far as I can tell no one has photoshopped this yet.

#coronavirus #carbolic smoke ball #mere puffery

3 notes · View notes

legallyhaunted · 6 years

Text

update: but what if it’s sexy too? they’d all be like “dani wtf are you” and I’d force them to hear the phrase “sexy carbolic smoke ball”

#dani does law school #carbolic smoke ball #halloween costumes for law students

3 notes · View notes

silverplumespectre · 7 years

Photo

Silver Standard, Volume 3, Number 19, January 22, 1887

1 note · View note

dandyads · 4 years

Photo

Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 1892

#carbolic smoke ball company #1890s #1892 #false advertising #dubious medical claims #did anyone actually buy this #victorian england #19th century

41 notes · View notes

lawonion · 4 years

Text

#Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co #law meme

4 notes · View notes

chispas-and-broken-bindings · 3 years

Note

I know it's not technically Wednesday yet, but do you have any bits to share with us?

Thanks nonny. I'm not going to share any more of I Just Think I'll Scream or Nothing Sacred until I get the next chapters posted.

Instead, here is a bit of Shock You that I never posted:

Jon fucked up. Big time.

He didn’t get Sansa’s number.

HE DIDN’T GET SANSA’S NUMBER.

It’s been exactly six days since he put her in the back of a Toyota Prius, insisting that she rest up for her shopping excursion while he lagged behind to clean up evidence of their break-in on Black Betha. He remembered to give her one more rabid kiss, ignoring the poor Uber driver in the front seat’s spiel about phone chargers and bottled water, and whatever other ridiculous accoutrements the gig economy is forcing him to give out, and then Jon closed the back passenger side door...completely forgetting to ask for Sansa’s phone number.

He’s an idiot of epic proportions.

“Earth to Jon!” Val hits him with her pen.

“Huh?”

“Dude, where are you? Did you brief the case for Hawkins v McGee yet or what?”

“Uh, yeah...yeah, it’s right here…” he starts minimizing windows on his laptop, and scanning through his folders, trying to find his brief, while Val stands up to watch over his shoulder.

“How do you find anything? Eew, look at your desktop. I feel physically ill looking at all those files. Do you even use a naming convention?”

“Oh, shut up. Here it is.”

“K, send it to me. I’m just waiting for Robb to finish Hamer v. Sideway-”

“Are school email addresses always the first initial followed by the last name at school dot edu?”

“I just sent you Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. You have my email address.”

But he’s not thinking of Val’s email. He’s wondering about Sansa’s… [email protected]? Or maybe it’s [email protected]?

He googles the university. Hmm...it’s luc.edu. He wouldn’t have guessed that. What if they use middle initials? What if it’s last name and then first name? He doesn’t know her middle initial. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. He could just spam every variation...that wouldn’t be weird and desperate, would it?

“Should I get a facebook?” he asks.

“Oh, my god. Jon Snow, Ygritte really did a number on you, didn’t she?”

He hasn’t thought of Ygritte since….since he realized the woman lying in his bed wasn’t her.

“No… I just, I don’t know, maybe it’s time to jump on the social media bandwagon.” He shrugs.

“Yes, please join Facebook, ten years too late, after it’s been taken over by racist uncles y cada tía preocupada. If you are looking to get laid, there are better apps.”

“I’m not looking to get laid…” Well, he kind of is, but not like that.

He could ask Robb for her number...HA! No he can’t.

#my asks #jonsa #wip wednesday #except not really a current wip #since I'm trying to narrow my focus

34 notes · View notes

flow-it-show-it · 5 years

Text

In a scent-guessing mood, so voilà:

Ruairí McGowan/The Clinic: Garnier Fructis pear-scented shampoo, 3 sprays of Armani Code, secondhand smoke, dancefloor sweat, wintergreen chewing gum

Dante Gabriel Rossetti/Desperate Romantics: Macassar (ylang-ylang) hair oil, linseed and turpentine, a literal fuck-ton of patchouli, midafternoon sex

John Schofield/Hattie: Shaving cream, axle grease, freshly laundered sheets, breath mints, Brut (nine out of ten cads swear by it)

Mal/Alarm: certainly not SOAP, I tell you what. Probably some hippie amber oil that comes in a roller-ball applicator and actually smells tasty when slapped on as a topcoat over a 30-day whore's bath marathon

John Mitchell/Being Human: Type O (the universal blood type, smells good on everyone); underneath that, Woodbines and burnt cinnamon roll

Philip Lombard/And Then There Were None: Pour un Homme de Caron, 30-year-old Kilbeggan, Clubman talc, gunpowder residue, lavender, secrets

Jack Conroy/The Secret Scripture: Lifebuoy carbolic soap, lanolin wool, clover, hay, machine oil, hot Guinness on cold days

Ross Poldark/Poldark: The sweat of good honest labor, saddle leather (and a hint of the horse that wore it), sea salt, fresh-cut grass, dark stout, Demelza

Russell Hank/Love Is Blind: Drywall dust, Ivory soap, root beer, burger grease, warm blankets after sleep, fresh air after a rainfall

Mad Pádraic/The Lieutenant of Inishmore: C-4 and Smarties

116 notes · View notes

skippyv20 · 5 years

Text

Interesting! Thank you!😁❤️❤️❤️❤️

English common law cases that are significant

The modern English legal system didn’t just appear in its current form overnight. English case law has developed over centuries into the complex and intricate body of laws that we find today, to the extent that it can be very difficult to follow. Over the years, certain legal disputes have become known as landmark cases, as they presented the courts with a dilemma in which a definitive decision was needed. Many of these cases had totally unique and interesting facts.

Donoghue v Stevenson

Any legal student or budding lawyer would be able to tell you about Donoghue v Stevenson. The decision in this famous dispute founded the general duty of care that manufacturers have to consumers. The facts of the case gave it the nickname of the “Paisley snail.” In 1928, Mrs. Donoghue purchased a bottle of ginger beer in a cafe in Paisley, Renfrewshire, Scotland, to pour over her ice cream (a Scottish ice cream float). She would consume some of the float. When the contents of the bottle were fully emptied into the float, a decomposed snail came out.

Mrs. Donoghue claimed illness from the snail and would also complain of stomach pains, requiring some medical attention. She was later diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis. Mrs. Donoghue took legal action against the original manufacturer of the ginger beer, and after deliberation which ended up in the House of Lords, she won against the manufacturer. Lord Atkin famously said when deliberating the case, “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour.“

R v Collins

R v Collins is a lesser-known case with facts that sound like something out of a horror movie. The case was key in the development of English criminal law on burglary and what it means to “enter as a trespasser.” In the early 1970s in Colchester, an 18-year-old woman had gone to bed intoxicated after spending the evening drinking with her boyfriend. As her bed was near an open window, she awoke in the middle of the night to the sight of a naked male crouched at the window sill. Unbeknownst to her, he had previously been using a ladder to peep in at the woman, who was nude herself, while she slept. The woman mistook this interloping voyeur for her boyfriend.

After inviting the man into her bed and having sex with him, the woman realized the man was not her boyfriend (though it was someone she knew). After turning on the light and hitting the man, she hid in the bathroom until he disappeared, presumably back out the window. The trial examined whether the man had been “invited” by the woman or if he was entering as a trespasser. The Court of Appeal found that the male had not entered the room prior to being invited by the woman and therefore had not committed a crime by doing so

Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball Co

Smoke Ball Co is another one that all lawyers will be able to attest to knowing about. It is often first taught when describing how English contract law has been shaped by the courts. The case involved the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, which had developed a smoke ball filled with carbolic acid to help treat the millions of sufferers of flu in England during the late 19th century. The smoke ball would make the patient’s nose run and, in theory, would flush out any viral infections. The mistake the company made was to advertise their new product with a £100 cash back offer in the event that any person who had used the device properly for two weeks still became sick with flu.

Mrs. Carlill had purchased the smoke ball based on this advertisement and used it for two months between 1891 and 1892—however, she would then contract the flu. After trying to claim her £100, she was ignored, delayed, and asked to prove her use by the company in a stalling tactic. In court, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company argued that the offer was not serious. However, Mrs. Carlill had purchased on the premise of the offer. The judgement concluded that the advertisement was a legally binding offer to people who chose to act upon its terms and that successfully meeting those terms meant acceptance of the offer.

R v Dudley and Stephens

I found the picture disturbing......

The “cannibal” case of R v Dudley and Stephens is really the stuff of nightmares. The case is actually one of the leading in English criminal law which established the fact that “necessity” cannot be used as a defense when charged with murder. In 1884, a crew of four seamen were traveling from the UK to Australia to deliver the yacht they were sailing. However, in the middle of the voyage, their ship sank due to bad weather, and the seamen were left in a lifeboat. With only a few cans of turnips to eat, the men quickly ran out of food and had no fluid source. They even began drinking their own urine.

After more than ten days of this, the crew discussed drawing lots to choose a sacrificial person to kill and devour to survive. As the youngest member of the crew, Richard Parker, had become so ill they believed he was close to death, crew members Edwin Stephens and Tom Dudley ultimately killed Parker by inserting a knife into his jugular vein. The three remaining men then ate Parker to survive. In the subsequent trial, after the survivors were rescued, it was found that the necessary evil of murder was not enough of a defense for Dudley and Stephens, as this could be a “legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime.”

R v Lipman

R v Lipman examined and established whether the fact that a person had voluntarily become intoxicated beforehand could be used as a defense to manslaughter under English criminal law. The case is considered landmark for forcing the courts to deal with the issue of unintentional murder under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The case involved a couple who regularly used recreational drugs. One evening in 1967, they both took LSD.

During the high, the man hallucinated that he was being attacked by snakes, and in the midst of defending himself from this attack, he strangled his partner. He also struck multiple blows to her head. The police had found evidence that the woman had been strangled, and the man claimed he had no intention of ever doing so. The man was eventually found guilty of manslaughter despite being intoxicated, as the courts found that by creating a dangerous and reckless situation, the man had created a risk that “ordinary sober and responsible people would recognise.”

Scott v Shepherd

The case of Scott v Shepherd, also known as the “famous squib case,” helped establish the principle of novus actus interveniens (“new act intervening”) in the civil courts. The defendant, Shepherd, had thrown a lit squib into a crowded market place in Somerset. A squib is a small explosive device that is sometimes used for pyrotechnic effects or for generating explosive force. The squib landed on the table of a market stall, where it was subsequently thrown by a passerby into the goods of another market stall. The man who owned the second market stall picked up the squib to throw it away, but it hit another man, Scott, in the face. The squib exploded at this point and cost Scott one of his eyes.

The courts looked to establish whether the damage to Scott’s eye was caused by the actions of the original thrower (Shepherd) or one of the subsequent people who had thrown the squib. The courts found Shepherd liable for the damages, as he had placed all of the subsequent people into a spiral of action “under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and self-preservation.”

R v M’Naghten

The high-profile case of M’Naghten from the 19th century firmly introduced the rules for determining if someone can plead insanity when they have committed a crime. The rules, known as the M’Naghten rules, were created by the House of Lords during the case and establish if someone is acting under a “disease of the mind” in a criminal case. The facts of the case were also high-profile, as they involved then-Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel.

The defendant, Daniel M’Naghten (pictured above), attempted to assassinate the prime minister in 1843 after mysteriously stalking him for a time. On the afternoon of January 20, M’Naghten followed Peel’s private secretary Edward Drummond in London and promptly shot him in the back with a pistol. M’Naghten had genuinely thought he was shooting the prime minister. Drummond would die five days later. M’Nagthen was acquitted of the murder by a jury based on a medical assessment of his mental state, which concluded that he was insane and not acting within his normal mind.

R v White

The criminal case of R v White was important in the establishment of causation and how to determine if an act has caused the criminal action to take place. The case established the “but for” test, which asks the question, “But for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?” This is an important test when determining liability of the defendant, particularly in murder or manslaughter cases.

The case in question involved attempted matricide, as a son had poisoned his mother’s milk with clear motivation to murder her. The mother drank some of the milk, but during the night, she died from an unrelated heart attack, in what was a freak coincidence. The question for the courts was whether the defendant was guilty of murder even though is actions had not actually caused the death. It was ruled that the son was guilty of attempted murder but not the more egregious crime of murder, as even if he had not acted, his mother would have died.

R v Abdul Hussain

The case of R v Abdul Hussain involved multiple countries but was ultimately played out in the courts of England. The case established a wider scope of the defense of duress and the immediacy of a threat to the person who has committed a crime. In certain situations, duress can be claimed as a defense to a crime when someone has been placed under immediate peril of injury or death. This case looked at what “immediate” actually meant.

A family of Shi’ite Muslims from Iraq were sentenced to death after being tortured for confessions. They were living in Sudan and were in constant fear of deportation to Iraq to face their sentences. Under this duress, they hijacked and flew a plane to Stansted Airport in England to seek asylum and safety from execution. The family were convicted of hijacking but later appealed on the grounds of duress and were successful. This is because the threat of death by execution was immediate enough for the family to warrant their actions. This means the defense of duress is available to someone hijacking a plane in a bid to escape serious harm or death.

Haughton v Smith

The case of Haughton v Smith reads like a classic tale of cops and robbers. The case established that a person cannot be convicted of possessing stolen goods or attempting to if the goods aren’t actually stolen. In this instance, police had stopped a van on the motorway which they discovered contained stolen goods. The police, in an effort to catch the accomplices who were waiting to receive the stolen goods, allowed the van to continue to the next service station. One of the waiting men, Roger Smith, was convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods.

The police’s ploy had worked, and they had caught the accomplice. However, the House of Lords overturned this decision, as they concluded that the goods were no longer “stolen” once they had been recovered by the police. It was impossible for the man to be convicted of stealing goods that were not stolen. This ruling would later be overturned by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which created laws concerning the attempt of crime.

13 notes · View notes