Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

Assignment 1

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) Facts

The plaintiff, Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth bought a smoke ball after seeing the advertisement made by the defendants who were a medical company under the name “Carbolic Smoke Ball” who sold a product called the “smoke ball” which the company claimed was a cure for a number of diseases including influenza. The newspaper advert posted on November 13, 1891 claimed that it would pay a £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball three times a day for two weeks and contracted influenza. The plaintiff after using the ball for nearly two months following the instructions provided she contracted the flu virus on the 17th of January 1892, she then sued the company to get the £100 she was promised in the newspaper advertisement.

Issues:

1. Does an advertisement to the general public create a binding contract?
2. Was there a notification of acceptance to offer made by Mrs. Carlill -  a contract requires one

Defendant’s arguments:

1. There was no acceptance of its offer
2. No proof of the conditions being met
3. No acceptance to offer was communicated to offeror
4. There was no binding contract, no promise was made in advertisement

Plaintiff’s argument:

1. The advertisement was an offer since it was published so it could be read and acted upon
2. There was consideration therefore the contract was not vague
3. There was proof of sincerity to pay “1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, showing our sincerity in the matter”
4. A promise is binding even though it’s not aimed at a specific person

Judgment

The court of appeal decided that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the £100 reward as stated by the advert since the advert created an offer of a unilateral contract and also because Mrs. Carlill had accepted the offer by following and performing the conditions stated. All the defendants’ arguments were rejected by the court for the following reasons:

1. There was intent backed up by the statement made by the company of depositing £1000 proving it was not a mere sales puff.
2. An offer to world is possible to make
3. No communication of acceptance to offer required in a unilateral contract because acceptance is done through full performance
4. A reasonable time limit was could be applied to fix the unspecified time frame. The editor at E-Lawresources (2013)

Introduction: the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is an influential case under the common law. It played a big part in the contribution of the development of the unilateral contracts and to this day is still binding on some courts in the United Kingdom and Wales. This essay’s main purpose is to identify the contractual principles which emerged from the decision of the court and also to explain why lawyers consider this case to be significant as a precedent and to be able to do so, l will be looking at how the law stood before the case to understand the case better.

...