Case Study: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Analysis

This case study provides a comprehensive brief of the landmark case Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civil 1, focusing on the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company's advertisement claiming their product prevented influenza and offering £100 compensation to anyone who contracted the illness after using it. The document details the facts of the case, including Mrs. Carlill's purchase and use of the smoke ball, the issues presented to the court regarding the existence of a binding contract and the company's liability, the court's unanimous decision in favor of Mrs. Carlill, and the reasoning behind the decision, emphasizing the express promise made by the company and the consideration involved. It also touches on separate opinions regarding the notification of acceptance. The analysis concludes that the case established the principle that performance of a contract can constitute acceptance of an offer when notification is not expressly required, making this document a valuable resource for law students.

Running head: HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
How to brief a case
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
Table of Contents
Title and Citation.............................................................................................................................2
Facts of the Case..............................................................................................................................2
Issues................................................................................................................................................2
Decision...........................................................................................................................................3
Reasoning........................................................................................................................................3
Separate Opinions............................................................................................................................3
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................4

2HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
Title and Citation
Title: Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Citation: [1892] EWCA Civil 1
Facts of the Case
According to the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 the
defendant, Carbolic Smoke Ball Co manufactured a Carbolic Smoke Ball and claimed in its
advertisement that the smoke ball prevents its users from Influenza. The company put up the
advertisement in several newspapers in London, stating that anyone who contracts influenza after
the smoke ball for a given time would be awarded £100 as a compensation. The company further
declared that it has deposited the award money at a local bank to prove its seriousness. The
plaintiff, Carlill purchased the smoke ball and used it for the given time exactly as per the
instruction given by the company. Hence, Carlill sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball co in order to get
the compensation money where the trial court granted it. In this regard, the company filed for an
appeal pointing out the following issues discussed below.
Issues
The issue of this case was to determine whether there was any binding contract between
the parties and whether the defendant was liable to compensate the plaintiff. As per the common
law of contract, a valid agreement involves notice of acceptance. Therefore, it was to be
determined whether Mrs. Carlill notified the defendant of her acceptance of the offer. It was also

3HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
needed to be ascertained whether Mrs. Carlill paid consideration for the offered reward of £100
(Turner, 2014).
Decision
The court of appeal rejected the company’s appeal unanimously and held that the parties
have a binding contract between themselves and the company was liable to pay £100 to the
plaintiff.
Reasoning
Lindley LJ held that the advertisement was an express promise made by the company,
which makes the parties binding to the agreement. The ad was not an invitation to treat. The ad is
not vague that it cannot be taken for a promise. While the judge held that notification of
acceptance was required as, the offer was a continuing offer and therefore it need not precede the
performance. As for the consideration, the company made profit with the sale of the product on
the first place, which makes it a valid consideration.
Bowen LJ and Smith LJ delivered similar reasoning in accordance with the decision of
Lindley LJ. They pointed out that the offer was not too vague to be considered as a promise.
They conformed to the decision of Lindley LJ regarding his reasoning about consideration.
However, they deviated from the decision of Lindley LJ in terms of the notification of
acceptance. They held that notification of acceptance was redundant.

4HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
Separate Opinions
There was no such dissenting judgment to this case; however, Lindley LJ gave a separate
notion for notification of acceptance, which requires the plaintiff to give a proper notification of
acceptance as it was a continuing offer and so it need not precede the performance.
Analysis
The case stands for the principle which states that if an offer has been given openly to the
world at large, and if it expressly does not require a notification of performance, then in that case
the performance of the contract would constitute the notification of acceptance of offer itself.

5HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
References:
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Turner, C. (2014). Key Cases: Contract Law. Routledge.
Bibliography:
How to brief a case | Lloyd Sealy Library at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (2018).
Retrieved from https://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/how-to/brief-a-case