carlil vs carbolic smokeball

8/4/2019 Carlil vs Carbolic Smokeball

1/13

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.


2/13

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called

the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and

a number of other diseases, in the context of the 1889-

1890 flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a

tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (phenol).

The tube was then inserted into the user's nose. It wassqueezed at the bottom to release the vapors into the

nose of the user. This would cause the nose to run, and

hopefully flush out the viral infection.

Facts


3/13

Facts


4/13

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 theinstructions set out in the advertisement.

1000 was deposited with the Alliance Bank, showingthe companys sincerity in the matter.

Conti


5/13

Advertisement


6/13

Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement,bought one of the balls and used according to theinstruction for nearly two months until she contracted

the flu on January 17, 1892 but at which latter dateshe had an attack of influenza.Her husband wrote a letter for her to the defendants,

stating what had occurred, and asking for the 100

promised by the defendants in the advertisement.

Conti


7/13

But the company replied with an anonymous letterthat if it is used properly the company had completeconfidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect

themselves against all fraudulent claims" they wouldneed her to come to their office to use the ball eachday and be checked by the secretary.

Conti


8/13

Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristersrepresenting her argued that the advertisement andher reliance on it was a contract between her and the

company, and so they ought to pay. The companyargued it was not a serious contract.

Conti


9/13

Does an advertisement to the general public promisingto money to anyone who does something create abinding contract between the parties?

U/S2(a) When one person signifies to another hiswillingness to do or to obtain from doing anything,

with a view to obtaining the assent of that other tosuch act, he said to make a proposal.

Issue


10/13

The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected thecompany's arguments and held that there was a fullybinding contract for 100 with Mrs Carlill.

Among the reasons given by the three judges were

Judgment

That the advert was a unilateral offer to all theworld.

That satisfying conditions for using the smokeball constituted acceptance of the offer.


11/13

ContiThat purchasing or merely using the smoke ballconstituted good consideration, because it was a distinctdetriment incurred at the behest of the company and,

furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relyingon the advert was a clear benefit to Carbolic

That the company's claim that 1000 was deposited at theAlliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legallybound.


12/13

In the present case the promise was put forward, withthe intention that it should be acted upon. It seems tothat there was ample consideration for the promise,

and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recoverthe reward.

Conti


13/13

THANK YOU

carlil vs carbolic smokeball

Documents