Detailed Case Summary: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (Law)

This case summary analyzes the landmark case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. The case revolves around an advertisement by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company promising a reward to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product as directed. The plaintiff, Mrs. Carlill, used the smoke ball as instructed but still contracted influenza, leading her to claim the reward. The key issues addressed include whether the advertisement constituted a valid offer, if acceptance occurred, and the presence of consideration. The court found in favor of Mrs. Carlill, establishing a unilateral contract. The judges determined that the company's deposit of money in a bank demonstrated their sincerity, and Mrs. Carlill's actions constituted acceptance and consideration. The summary covers the facts, issues, relevant law, and the court's final decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case's legal principles.

CASE SUMMARY
BY
LAKSHMI CHANDAN YADLAPATI
ID: 4611567
Y.L.CHANDAN
(LAKSHMI CHANDAN YADLAPATI)
CASE : Carlill vs carbolic smokeball company
FACTS : The advertisement issued by the defendants “THE CARBOLIOC
SMOKEBALL COMPANY” in the pall mall gazette of 13th November 1891 stated

that, any person who have contracted with influenza even after using their product
smoke ball in a specified manner and for a specified time will be rewarded with 100
pounds. The plaintiff carlill, who believed in the advertisement bought and used the
smoke balls as per the instructions.
ISSUES : . Even after using the smoke ball for the specified period carlill was
contacted with the influenza, for which carlill sued the company for not paying the
reward amount.
Relevant Law:
 The defendants argued about the acceptance of offer was not performed in this
case, for which bowen,lj stated that “This is an offer to be liable for everyone who
retracted, fulfils the conditions, even though the offer is made to the world, the
contract is made with the limited number of people who come forward and
perform the condition on believing the advertisement”
 Then the defendants contended that the offer is not binding, as the offer is not
made with the anybody in particular, for which lindley l.j judged that in the view
of law the advertisement is an offer to pay 100 pounds to anybody who will
perform the conditions as stated in the advertisement. Fulfilling the conditions is
acceptance of the offer in this case.
Promise or puff? Justice Lindley observed that there is a promise to pay 100 pounds
which will be paid by carbolic smoke ball company to any person who have
contracted with influenza after using their smoke ball as directed as a reward if they
inform them. And also stated that they have deposited 1000 pounds in Allianz bank
as their commitment to pay, this shows that the company is serious about their
statement in the advertisement.
ACTUAL DECISSION : Mrs carlill was entitled to the reward, there was a
unilateral contract having offer made by the carbolic smoke ball company through
the advertisement and Mrs carlill has accepted the offer by performing the
conditions stated in the advertisement.
 The offer was valid as the offer is made to the world, and who ever performed
the conditions of offer have accepted the offer and binded by the contract.
 The statements in the advertisement as depositing 1000 pounds in a bank to
show their sincerity to words the offer.
 There was consideration, as Mrs carlill has performed the conditions stated in
the offer and also the carbolic smoke ball company has benfited from that.
By considering the above issues and facts the court had established a contract
between the smoke ball company and the plaintiff Mrs carlill, by this the company
was entitled to pay 100 pounds to Mrs carlill as reward for contacting with
influenza even after using their carbolic smoke ball, as directed in the
advertisement. All the four judges who have heard the case have given the same
judgement, even though differing on some points.