Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carlill V Smoke Ball Company 2
Carlill V Smoke Ball Company 2
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law
decision by the Court of Appeal. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the
influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive
ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the
first legal case a law student studies.
A medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, a smoke ball, would cure people's flu,
and if it did not, buyers would receive £100. When sued, Carbolic argued the ad was not to
be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was merely an invitation to treat, and a
gimmick. But the court of appeal held that it would appear to a reasonable man that Carbolic
had made a serious offer. People had given good "consideration" for it by going to the
"distinct inconvenience" of using a faulty product.
Case Facts
Court:
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Full Case Name:
Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Date Decided:
8th December 1892
Citations:
[1892] EWCA Civil 1,
[1893] 1 QB 256
Judges:
Lindley LJ,
Bowen LJ
And AL Smith LJ
Prior Actions:
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484
Defendant:
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
The company made a product called “Smoke Ball". It claimed to be a cure to influenza and
many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have
killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.
The ball is filled with Carbolic acid (Phenol). The tube is supposed to be inserted in one of
your nostrils and the bottom part of the rubber ball is to be pressed. The gas enters your
respiratory tract and flushes out al the viruses.
Advertisement:
The Company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on
November 13, 1891, claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza
after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.
“£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts
the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having
used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied
with each ball. £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our
sincerity in the matter. During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke
balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease
contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball. One carbolic smoke ball will last a family
several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10s post free. The
ball can be refilled at a cost of 5s. Address: “Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, “27, Princes
Street, Hanover Square, London."
Plaintiff:
Louisa Carlill
She, believing in the accuracy of the statement made in the advertisement with respect to
efficacy of the smoke ball in cases of influenza, purchased one packet and used it thrice
everyday from mid November, 1891 until 17th Jan, 1892, at which latter date she had an
attack of influenza.
Thereupon, her husband wrote a letter for her to the defendants, stating what had happened,
and asking for £100 as promised in the advertisement. They refused and this action was
brought in court before Hawkins J. and a special jury. Arguments were heard on both the
sides and finally the verdict was given in favor of Mrs. Carlill.
The defendants appealed.
Judgments
The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was
a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs. Carlill
Among the reasons given by the three judges were
(1) That the advertisement was a unilateral offer to the entire world
(2) The satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer.
(3) That purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted good consideration, because
it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more
people buying smoke balls by relying on the advert was a clear benefit to Carbolic
(4) That the company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the
serious intention to be legally bound.
The judgments of the court were as follows.
Lindley.L.J:
He dismissed the appeal. He, giving his decision first and reasons later, explained his
judgment answering to all allegations put up by the defendant’s counsel and upholding the
lower court’s decision. An excerpt which makes a short shrift of the insurance and wagering
contract that were dealt with in the Queen’s Bench
“I will begin by referring to two points which were raised in the Court below. I refer to them
simply for the purpose of dismissing them. First, it is said no action will lie upon this
contract because it is a policy. You have only to look at the advertisement to dismiss that
suggestion. Then it was said that it is a bet. Hawkins, J., came to the conclusion that nobody
ever dreamt of a bet, and that the transaction had nothing whatever in common with a bet. I
so entirely agree with him that I pass over this contention also as not worth serious attention.
Aftermath
The appeal was dismissed unanimously by all the three judges and Mrs. Carlill finally
received compensation of £100. She lived to the ripe old age of 96. She died on March 10,
1942; according to her doctor principally of old age. There was one cause noted though:
Influenza.
Mr. Roe, owner of Carbolic Smoke ball Co., continued with his aggressive marketing. This
time he increased the reward to £200 following the loss of the case.
Conclusion
This is the most frequently cited case in the common law of contract, particularly where
unilateral contracts are concerned. It provides an excellent study of the basic principles of
contract and how they relate to every day life. Essential elements of contract including Offer
& Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to create Legal Relations, etc. were mentioned in this
case. This case forms the foundation for Contract Law
01761198026702 FORID:11