Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

(1893)
 FACTS OF THE CASE
•Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (D) manufactured and sold The
Carbolic Smoke Ball.
•The manufacturer held an advertisement in various
newspapers that any person who used the smoke ball three
times per day as directed and contracted influenza, colds, or
any other disease & found it did not work, would be awarded
£100.
•Carlill saw the advertisement and decided to buy one of the
carbolic smoke balls. She used it exactly as advised, but still
caught influenza.
•Carlill made a claim for the reward & Carbolic Smoke
Ball Co. refused to pay.
•She took the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to court in order
to claim her £100.
 The defences
1. The advertisement was „a mere puff” – a sales
gimmick with no intention
2. A contract with the whole world is no contract at all
3. The wording was too vague
4. Acceptance was not communicated
5. Mrs Carlill provided no consideration for CSC’s
promise to pay the reward

The court found in her favour, but the defendants

appealed.
•The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised in the Pall Mall Gazette in
1891 that their Carbolic Smoke Ball was a cure for flu, bronchitis, coughs,
colds, headaches, hay-fever, whooping cough, laryngitis and sore throats
amongst others.
• It was so confident of the usefulness of the carbolic smoke ball, and its
ability not only to cure but also to prevent someone from getting the ‘flu,
that it advertised on the following basis: Anyone who used the carbolic
smoke ball in a particular way for a specified period of time, but who still
caught influenza afterwards, would be entitled to claim £100 from the
company.
• The advertisement went on to say that the company had gone so far as to
deposit £1000 in the Alliance Bank in the event of any such claims.
•The plaintiff (who nowadays would be called the ‘claimant’) saw the
advertisement and decided to buy one of the carbolic smoke balls.
• She used it exactly as advised, but still caught influenza.
•She took the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to court in order to claim her
£100.
• The court found in her favour, but the defendants appealed.
COURT DECISION :

• The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the reward as
the advert constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had
accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer.
• The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the defendants for
the following reasons:
1. The statement referring to the deposit of £1,000 demonstrated intent
and therefore it was not a mere sales puff.
2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree.
communicates an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full
performance.
4. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of
being resolved by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to
only those who caught flu whilst still using the balls.
5. The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they
had not been purchased by them directly.
The defendant raised the following
arguments to demonstrate the advertisement
was a mere invitation to treat rather than an
offer: 1. The advert was a sales puff and
lacked intent to be an offer. 2. It is not
possible to make an offer to the world. 3.
There was no notification of acceptance. 4.
The wording was too vague to constitute an
offer since there was no stated time limit as
to catching the flu. 5. There was no
consideration provided since the 'offer' did
not specify that the user of the balls must
have purchased them.