Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball: A Business Law Case Study Analysis

This case study analyzes the landmark case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256. The case revolves around an advertisement by the defendant, Carbolic Smokeball Company, claiming to cure influenza with their product. The plaintiff, Lilli Carlill, used the product as directed but still contracted influenza and sued for the promised reward of £100. The analysis covers the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the court's reasoning and decision. The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer, which Carlill accepted by performing the conditions, establishing a binding contract. The decision highlights key principles of contract law, including offer, acceptance, and consideration, and its implications for advertising and consumer protection. The case study also discusses the significance of the decision in terms of product liability and the regulation of misleading advertisements, emphasizing the importance of clear and unambiguous promises in advertisements.

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

Law 200
3
was a consideration as well as the promise made under the advertisement was not vague. In this
manner, the ad was an offer, which has been accepted by the plaintiff.
Arguments of the Defendant
As mentioned above, the defendant also made some arguments in reply to the arguments
made by the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the advertisement was not an offer and therefore
no binding contract was there. There was no limit mentioned in the same. It means a person
could claim that the same caught flu many years after using the ball. Further means of checking
the use done by the customer were also missing. The ad was too vague and was improper to
develop a contract (Wright, 2016). A contract needs communication of intention to perform a
task or to accept the offer and cannot directly accept as the plaintiff did.
Reason for the decision
In the decision of this, the court decided in favor of the plaintiff after hearing and
considering arguments of both sides. Justice Lindley LJ considered the ad as an express promise
as it was mentioned to give a fixed amount to the person who possesses flu after using the ball in
a defined manner. In the reasoning, it was given that a unilateral offer is always there when a
clear promise is made and required to be fulfilled even in those cases where the promise is made
even to a non-identified person (Poole, 2016). This was a continuing offer and there was no
requirement to notify the acceptance. Further, proper consideration was also there.

Law 200
4
The decision of the court
After reviewing the fact, arguments of parties and decision of the court, it is to state that
the decision seems to be appropriate for many of the reasons. The defendant made an appeal that
has been rejected. There should be a liability on the part of the party who makes a unilateral
offer. if there would be no such obligation, there shall not be any mean to held such offers valid.
In general, statements made under an advertisement may be considered as only puff but those
advertisements that contain clear promise should be treated differently.
The decision of the case provided an excellent study of contract law principles and
considered the way in which contracts develop regularly. It ensures to regulate publishing the
advertisement and after the decision of the case, parties consider the possible consequences. The
decision ensures to grant statutory and contractual remedies to the innocent parties.
The very first thing to mention here is that providing false or misleading advertisements
and an advertisement with no intention to fulfill the mentioned promises is treated as a criminal
offense. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prevents such misleading
practices. As per regulation 5 of the said regulation, a commercial practice seems to be
considered where it consists of any false or untruthful information. Secondly, the product in
subjective case i.e. smoke ball was not safe as it made users more vulnerable to the flu instead of
treating them well. The decision provided in this case also seems to be important for imposing
product liability on the defaulted parties. The performance of the condition seems to be a valid
acceptance and should be treated like this only. Although the defendant was mistaken as no
maximum number of the claimant was decided there as well as any means to check the validity
of the claim stated in the case. Here again, the decision seems to be appropriate as it limits the

Law 200
5
right of defense of the defendant and shows that if a clear promise is there then the innocent
party is not required to be suffered from the mistakes of the defendant if any.
Here to state that providing opposite decision i.e. decision in favor of the defendant could
lead an unjustified situation. Anyone would have started the practices to show rewards or another
fake claim and later on to deny with the same. Further, it would have ended the purpose of a
unilateral offer. Hence, to state that the decision made under the case was correct and protected
the interest of the party that relies upon unilateral promises.

Law 200
6
References
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
E-lawresources.co.uk. (2019). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of
Appeal. Retrieved from: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Carlill-v-Carbolic-Smoke-
Ball-Co.php
Jimenez, M., J. (2016). Contract Law: A Case and Problem Based Approach. New York:
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Merrills, J., & Fisher, J. (2013). Pharmacy Law and Practice. USA: Academic Press.
Poole, J. (2016). Casebook on Contract Law. UK: Oxford University Press.
Stone, R., Devenney, J. & Cunnington, R. (2011). Text, Cases and Materials on Contract Law.
Oxon: Routledge.
Wright, D. (2016). Using Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide for Engineers and Project
Managers. UK: John Wiley & Sons.