Detailed Analysis: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - Law Assignment

This assignment provides a comprehensive analysis of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, a landmark legal precedent in contract law. It begins with a summary of the facts, outlining the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company's advertisement promising compensation to those who contracted influenza ...Read More

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

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
means statements
that invite further
negotiation or
invitation to treat.
• As discussed in Partridge v
Crittenden (1968)
Must be true and must
not be deceptive by
claiming false
promises.
• “Bait and Switch” tactics
prohibited.
The court held that it was
an offer, because:
 The defendant had
intention to form a
binding contract for it
deposited £1,000 in the
bank.
 An unilateral
contracts does not
require
communication from
the offeree’s end.
 It is quite possible to
make an offer to the
world.
 Reasonable time within
which plaintiff sued.

OFFER TO THE WORLD
 An offer can be made to
the world for it may be
express or implied, to a
group of person to an
individual or even to the
world at large.
 The court allowed it in the
Carbolic smoke ball case.
 It is sometimes binding,
when it is a claim to
reimburse money for
faulty agreements.
 It could also take pace
over the internet in
today’s world of internet
consciousness.
Through
advertisement ,
Offer is made :
 to a targeted group
of people or
sometimes even to
the world at large.

MRS CALILL’S ACTIONS
Mrs Carlil’s steps to
accept the offer:
 Knowledge of the
facts of the offer of
the smoke ball
company
 Purchased the smoke
ball and uses it as
per the given advice.
 contracted the flu
even after
recommended
usage.
 Gives her the right
Rule for communication of
acceptance:
 Offeree must agree to
the offer of the offeror
and must communicate
either orally or in
writing about his
acceptance of the offer.
 However, in this case,
as because it was an
unilateral contact, the
offeree was not
required to intimate the
offeror regarding her
acceptance.

CONCLUSION
REVOCATION OF OFFEER SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE
TEST
 The Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company could have
revoked the offer
anytime before Mrs
Carlill or anyone else
had accepted the offer,
by purchasing the
product.
 While, they could have
removed the clause
where they promised to
pay £100 to its affected
clients
Objective Test
 Severable clause
 A reasonable person
would accept the
contract even
without knowing the
clauses.

REFERENCES
 Bowerman and. Wallace v Association of
British Travel Agents. [1996] CLC 451
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1
QB 256
 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
 Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204

THANK YOU