Analysis of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] Case Summary

This document provides a detailed summary of the landmark case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256. The case revolves around an advertisement by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company promising a reward to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product. The sum...Read More

RUNNING HEAD: BASIC BUSINESS LAW 1
Basic Business Law
Summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Submitted by:

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 2
Contents
Facts of the case..........................................................................................................................................2
Arguments of the plaintiff...........................................................................................................................3
Arguments of the defendant........................................................................................................................3
Reason for the decision of the case..............................................................................................................4
Decision of the court...................................................................................................................................4
References...................................................................................................................................................5

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 3
Facts of the case
Carlil Smoke Ball Co. (Def) had made to pay 100 pounds to the person who contracts flu
after using smoke ball. The Carlil Smoke ball Co. Asserted to cure for influenza and the other
diseases. The smoke ball was rubbers Carlil (plaintiff) used the Smoke ball but contact flu. The
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' that is designed to avert users
suffering influenza or related disease. The ad for the product was as follows:
Carlil Smoke Ball Co. (Def) will pay a reward of 100 pounds reward to an individual
who contracts the growing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease from cold, subsequent to
using the ball three times daily for two weeks as per the directions given with each ball. Further
the advert stated that a sum of 1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street,
in regard of performance in the matter(McKendrick, 2014).
Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill purchased the balls and used it as per the mentioned
direction, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, while she contracted

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 4
influenza. Due to this she claimed the compensation; where The Company declined to pay, even
after getting a notice from the solicitor(ACL,2013).
Arguments of the plaintiff
Mrs. Carlil sued the company arguing existence of contract between the parties while
considering her confidence in the product.
The advertisement made by Carlil Smoke Ball is a valid offer and was not an empty
swank. It was made to the public and an individual does the particular act there is a contract.
Performance of the act comprise acceptance for which further communication is not important.
In case of an open offer, nothing can be introduced supplementary than the fulfillment of the
conditions. Such an offer doesn’t require a notice for fulfilling the condition. There is a binding
contract and the terms were not indistinct and unsure(Jalil, 2011).
Arguments of the defendant
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co said that there was no binding contract and the advertisement
expressed an intention, that doesn’t create a legal obligation. The advertisement was unclear to
constitute a contract, as there was no consideration from the plaintiff. The supposed contract
enables an individual to steal and use the balls in order to claim the reward. In order to perform a
contract, there needs to be communication of purpose to accept the offer. According to Carbolic
Smoke ball simply performing an act in private is not enough to consider it as a contract(Knapp,
Crystal & Prince,2016).
Reason for the decision of the case
It was noted that the advertisement constituted an offer. There was a binding contract.
The offer was too unclear to constitute an offer due to an absence of fixed time limit for catching
influenza. The intention behind the advertisement was clear that directly states the purpose for
creating legal relationship.
Decision of the court
I do agree with the judgment given by Lord Justice Lindley on the following grounds:

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 5
The advertisement in its plain meaning was meant for the community and to be read by
the public. The purpose was to instigate sales and to attract people to use smoke ball. For the
reason an offer has to be made to the world at large. The contract would be made with those who
fulfill the condition attached with it(Smits, 2017). It is not possible to be informed of acceptance
of the offer, and the performance of act. The Consideration exists at the time when sale was
made. Carbolic Smoke ball has clearly stated its intention in the advertisement. The purpose was
to create a legal obligation. There was consideration for some reason to promote their sale. The
intention is pretty much clear. The situation was not vague and clearly states a commitment to
pay a sum in case of non-fulfillment of mentioned situation (McKendrick,2014).
An offer can be made to the whole world will be fulfilled as and when an individual
fulfill the obligation. There is no necessity to notify the acceptance - There is no need for
notification of acceptance in case of an open offer. Anyone can accept the offer under such a
situation. The offeror will be responsible to fulfill all the obligations attached with it. An
inference need to be made from the transaction itself in order to perform the condition. This
condition doesn’t attract notification. Furthermore, the act was not a mere puff. Lord Justice
Lindley stated that - the deposit of a sum with the bank showcases genuineness. This would be
an insensitive thing to guarantee such sums to individuals unless possible to confirm their
method of using it(Poole, Devenney & Shaw-Mellors,2017).
References
ACL, (2013). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256.(ONLINE). Retrieved
from: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/carlill.html Accessed on: 9 October
2017
Jalil, A. (2011). Clarification of rules of acceptance in making business contracts. J. Pol. & L., 4,
109.

Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256 6
Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2016). Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Poole, J., Devenney, J., & Shaw-Mellors, A. (2017). Contract Law Concentrate: Law Revision
and Study Guide. Oxford University Press.
Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017). Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.