Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  1 QB Emphasised the significance of offer and acceptance in contract law; distinguishes betw. The Plaintiff, believing Defendant’s advertisement that its product would prevent influenza, bought a Carbolic Smoke Ball and used it as directed from November. Sample case summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  2 QB Prepared by Claire Macken. Facts: • Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (def) promises in ad to.
||26 April 2007
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
That is not the sort of difficulty which presents itself here. Wikisource has original text related to this article: I cannot picture to myself the view of the law on which the contrary could be held when you have once found who are the contracting parties. Providing resources for studying law. We were asked by the council for the defendants to say that this document was a contract too vague to be enforced. I so entirely agree with him that I pass over this contention also as not worth serious attention.
Simpsonin an article entitled ‘Quackery and Contract Law’  gave the background of the case as part of the scare arising from the Russian influenza pandemic of It has been argued that this is nudum pactum – that there is no consideration. I apprehend that they are an exception to that rule, or, if not an exception, they are open to the observation that the notification of the acceptance need not precede the performance.
We, therefore, find here all the elements which are necessary to form a binding contract enforceable in point of law, subject to two carboliv. The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert constituted an offer of a amoke contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer.
It was an offer to become liable smlke any person who before the offer should be retracted should happen to be the person to fulfil the contract, of which the advertisement was an offer or tender. The first is, catching the epidemic during its carlll the second is, catching the influenza during the time you are using the ball; the third is, catching the influenza within a reasonable time after the expiration of the two weeks during which you have used the ball three times daily.
Is it to go on for ever, or for what limit of time? Then it is asked, What is a reasonable time?
On a third request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball’s efficacy, but “to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims”, they would vv her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appealwhich held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms.
The parties to the alleged contract had never met caroill communicated with each other directly. In many cases carlilll extract from the character of the transaction that notification is not required, and in the advertisement cases it seems to me to follow as an inference to be drawn from the transaction itself that a person is not to notify his acceptance of the offer balll he performs the condition, but that if he performs the condition notification is dispensed with.
The company did not have limited liabilitywhich could have meant personal ruin for Mr. The defendant raised the following arguments to demonstrate the advertisement was a mere invitation to treat rather than an offer: Once the case had been decided by the Court of Appeal, it met with general approval, but especially so from the medical community.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co – Wikipedia
How would an ordinary person reading this document construe it? Viewed with a modern eye, many have argued that Carlill should be seen as redolent of another era, not a foundational case in the law of contract. Lord Campbell ‘s judgment when you come to examine it is open to the explanation, that the real point in that case was that the promise, if any, was to the original bearer and not to the plaintiff, and that as the plaintiff was not suing in the name of the original bearer there was no contract with him.
Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 
Thus it seemed very peculiar to say that there had been any sort of agreement between Mrs. The unsuccessful defence counsel in the lower court, H. Lord Justice Lindley was a prolific author, widely known for his work on partnership and company law.
After the action, Mr. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu.
Then Lord Campbell goes on to enforce that view by shewing that there was no consideration shewn for the promise to him. Then, what is left? My answer to that question is No, and I base my answer upon this passage: Similar regimes for product liability have developed around the world through statute and tort law since the early twentieth century, one of the leading cases being Donoghue v Stevenson.
Another suggested meaning is that you are warranted free from catching this epidemic, or colds or other diseases caused by taking cold, whilst you are using this remedy after using it for two weeks.
Now, I will not enter into an elaborate discussion upon the law as to requests in this kind of contracts. Louisa Carlill, however, lived until she was There could be at most only a few claimants for this, but there is no limit on the number of those who may catch influenza. He does, therefore, in his offer impliedly indicate that he does not require notification of the acceptance of the offer. The short answer, to abstain from academical discussion, is, it seems to me, that there is here a request to use involved in the offer.
For instance, Professor Hugh Collins writes the following. If his first reason was not enough, and the plaintiff and the defendant there had come together as contracting parties and the only question was consideration, it seems to me Lord Campbell’s reasoning would not have been sound.
If that is the meaning, the plaintiff is right, for she used the remedy for two weeks and went on using it till she got the epidemic. I will begin by referring to two points which were raised in the Court below. Lindley LJ gave the first judgment on it, after running through the facts again.
It provides an excellent study of the basic principles of contract and how they relate to every day life. In the advertisement’s small print were some restrictive conditions, with a period of 3 months to use the ball and claim, showing that legal advice had been adhered to. The case remains good law. Then Lord Campbell went on to give a second reason. That seems to me to be sense, and it is also the ground on which all these advertisement cases have been decided during the century; and it cannot be put better than in Willes, J.
The judges run through a shopping-list of questions: It was intended unquestionably to have some effect, and I think the effect which it was intended to have, was to make people use the smoke ball, because the suggestions and allegations which it contains are directed immediately to the use of the smoke ball as distinct from the purchase of it.
The Chimbuto Smoke Ball Company made a product called the “smoke ball” which claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases. I think the immunity is to last during the use of the ball.
The truth is, that if in that case you had found a contract between the parties there would have been no difficulty about consideration; but you could not find such a contract. But there is no obligation on the promisee to continue to inhale, to walk the whole way to York or to refrain from suing.