Detailed Analysis: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - Law Assignment

This assignment provides a comprehensive analysis of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, a landmark legal precedent in contract law. It begins with a summary of the facts, outlining the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company's advertisement promising compensation to those who contracted influenza after using their product. The assignment then explores the company's arguments against the advertisement being considered an offer, including claims of 'invitation to treat,' lack of acceptance communication, vague statements, and lack of consideration. The document details the court's reasoning for deeming the advertisement an offer, emphasizing the company's intention to create a binding contract, the nature of unilateral contracts, and the possibility of making an offer to the world. It examines Mrs. Carlill's actions in accepting the offer, addressing the rules for communication of acceptance, and the company's ability to revoke the offer. Finally, the assignment clarifies the court's use of an objective test in assessing the parties' intentions and includes references to relevant legal sources. This assignment is a valuable resource for students studying contract law and offers a clear understanding of the key principles of offer and acceptance illustrated in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case.

THE CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL
CASE

FACTS
 Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a ‘Smoke
Ball’ that claimed to cure influenza and other
diseases.
 They held that they would offer a compensation
of £100 to anyone who contracts such diseases
even after using it as per recommendation.
 Mrs. Carlill suffered from influenza even after
using it as advised, and hence she filed a suit to
recover the promised £100.
 The court gave order in her favour and the
defendant appealed.

ARGUMENTS BY THE COMPANY
The defendant argued:
 ‘Invitation to treat’, not an offer ( as held in
Fisher v Bell)
 no communication of acceptance (as
discussed in Bowerman and. Wallace v
Association of British Travel Agents)
 vague and ambiguous advertisement
statements
 no consideration
 no means to check whether Mrs. Carlill
genuinely used the ball

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
means statements
that invite further
negotiation or
invitation to treat.
• As discussed in Partridge v
Crittenden (1968)
Must be true and must
not be deceptive by
claiming false
promises.
• “Bait and Switch” tactics
prohibited.
The court held that it was
an offer, because:
 The defendant had
intention to form a
binding contract for it
deposited £1,000 in the
bank.
 An unilateral
contracts does not
require
communication from
the offeree’s end.
 It is quite possible to
make an offer to the
world.
 Reasonable time within
which plaintiff sued.

OFFER TO THE WORLD
 An offer can be made to
the world for it may be
express or implied, to a
group of person to an
individual or even to the
world at large.
 The court allowed it in the
Carbolic smoke ball case.
 It is sometimes binding,
when it is a claim to
reimburse money for
faulty agreements.
 It could also take pace
over the internet in
today’s world of internet
consciousness.
Through
advertisement ,
Offer is made :
 to a targeted group
of people or
sometimes even to
the world at large.

MRS CALILL’S ACTIONS
Mrs Carlil’s steps to
accept the offer:
 Knowledge of the
facts of the offer of
the smoke ball
company
 Purchased the smoke
ball and uses it as
per the given advice.
 contracted the flu
even after
recommended
usage.
 Gives her the right
Rule for communication of
acceptance:
 Offeree must agree to
the offer of the offeror
and must communicate
either orally or in
writing about his
acceptance of the offer.
 However, in this case,
as because it was an
unilateral contact, the
offeree was not
required to intimate the
offeror regarding her
acceptance.

CONCLUSION
REVOCATION OF OFFEER SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE
TEST
 The Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company could have
revoked the offer
anytime before Mrs
Carlill or anyone else
had accepted the offer,
by purchasing the
product.
 While, they could have
removed the clause
where they promised to
pay £100 to its affected
clients
Objective Test
 Severable clause
 A reasonable person
would accept the
contract even
without knowing the
clauses.

REFERENCES
 Bowerman and. Wallace v Association of
British Travel Agents. [1996] CLC 451
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1
QB 256
 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204

THANK YOU