Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256

Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW
0
Business Law
Law 200
10/10/2019
Student’s Name

Law 200
1
Contents
Facts of the case...............................................................................................................................2
Arguments of the plaintiff...............................................................................................................3
Arguments of the Defendant............................................................................................................3
Reason for the decision....................................................................................................................3
The decision of the court.................................................................................................................4
References........................................................................................................................................6

Law 200
2
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Facts of the case
The defendant, Carbolic Smokeball Company develop "smoke ball", a product that
claimed to cure influenza as well as other diseases. The ball was filled with carbolic acid
(Jimenez, 2016). The company put the advertisement in a newspaper making the said claim and
stated that if by using the developed smoke ball in a prescribed manner any person who contracts
increasing influenza or another cold related disease, then the company will pay a reward worth
£100 (Stone, Devenney & Cunnington, 2011). As per the advertisement, customers were
required to use the subjective ball three times a day for a period of 2 weeks. Lilli Carlill, the
plaintiff believed in the claim made by the defendant in the presented advertisement and
purchased a carbolic small ball and started using the same (Merrills & Fisher, 2013). The
purchased smoke ball failed to treat her. Further, she also caught the flu after using the smoke
ball in the prescribed manner. As all the conditions stated under the published advertisement
were fulfilled hence in the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant. She claimed the
amount of the reward from the defendant i.e. £100.
Arguments of the plaintiff
The plaintiff, as well as the defendant, presented their arguments. The lead argument
made by the plaintiff was centered on the nature of the advertisement. The plaintiff stated that
the advertisement was an offer, not the invitation to treat (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2019). It was
not an empty boast and anyone could accept that by merely doing what was written in the same.
The defendant was aware that the advertisement would be published, read, and acted upon. There