The Carbolic Smoke Ball Case: Facts, Arguments, and Conclusion

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