Carlill vs carbolic smoke Name- ruchi sharma

Reg No: 210409120094

balls
introduction
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball case dealt with the
question if to consider whether an advertising
company gimmick can be considered as express
contractual promise to pay. Here since a
unilateral contract was made, acceptance can be
made without formal communication.
 Facts
The defendant company that is Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. was a London based
company. On November 13th, 1891 they placed an advertisement in several
newspapers stating that their product “The Carbolic Smoke Ball”, if used three
times daily for two weeks then that person would not be affected by colds and
influenza. The company additionally offered to pay 100£ as reward if anyone
caught influenza using their product. They also guaranteed this reward by showing
a bank statement saying they had already deposited 1000£ in the bank to show their
sincerity. Lili Carlill, the plaintiff had bought this smoke ball and used it as directed
by the company. Few weeks later, she caught flu.
ISSUES
1.whether there was any binding effect of the contract
between the parties?
2.Whether the contract in question required a formal
notification of acceptance?
3.Whether Mrs Carlill was required to communicate her
acceptance of the offer to the Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company?
4.Whether Mrs Carlill provided any consideration in exchange
for the reward of 100 pounds offered by the company?
JUDGEMENT
• The court unanimously dismissed the appeal made
by defendants and Mrs. Carlill received the compensation of
£100. The judges stated that the advertisement shall be treated
as an express promise and according to this promise; anyone
who contracts the flu despite the preventive ability of the smoke
ball as claimed by the company will be paid £100 provided that
the ball is utilized as per the directions.