Carlill V carbolic smoke ball co

In the famous case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball co (1893) which set a major precedent in the
English contract law which determined many important principles in unilateral contracts. The
case was first held in the Queen’s bench, but the final decision was made in the court of appeal,
under the civil division.
The facts of the case are that on That Carbolic Smoke ball company made a smoke ball that cures
influenza, as people would insert the ball into their nose and subsequently it would initiate fluids
to come out, which causes the flushing of anything viral. On November 13th 1891, the company
posted an advertisement in the Pall Mall Gazette, which stated, ““£100 reward will be paid by
the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic
influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily
for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1000 is deposited
with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter”.
Mrs. Carlill saw the advertisement and bought the smoke balls and used it three times daily for
two months before she contracted influenza. Thus, she contacted the company to receive her
reward. However, the company responded stating the advertisement was an invalid contract and
so Mrs. Carlill took the case to court.
In Court of appeal, the defendants tried to use the defense that it was not a valid contract and
rather an invitation to treat by using multiple premises. The first one is that the advertisement
was in reality a sales tactic, to give an incentive to consumers to buy the product and as there
have never been a case of a person contracting the flu, the intent was not to make a contract.
Further, they also argued that it was impossible to make an offer to the world and the fact that the
company did this, shows that advert was not a serious offer. Furthermore, the advert in itself was
to vague and that there was no fixed time for a person to catch influenza and so in a an example
if a person uses the smoke ball and years later the person contracts the flu, they are still eligible
for the reward. In addition, the defendants also argued that there was no notification of
acceptance, as Mrs. Carlill did not notify the company that she accepted their offer and so there
is no valid contract. Lastly, another principle that was used was in the circumstances if the balls
were not purchased, but rather stolen, than in this case the company would have no advantage as
they would be losing their profits.
However, the final judgment was ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill and all of the arguments brought
forward by the defendant’s lawyers were rebuked. The judges in the case said the argument
regarding that the advert was not a serious offer and rather an invitation to treat is not valid,
because when we consider the fact that the company deposited 1000 pounds to the Alliance
Bank, it shows their intentions to be serious. Though, it is agreed that the advert was vague and
there was no time specified, the judges as long as a reasonable amount of time was used by the
plaintiff, which was done (2 months), there should be no issue in claiming the reward.
In addition, as the advert is a unilateral contract, it is possible to make a contract with the world
and because of the nature of the contract, there is no requirement for Mrs. Carlill to notify the
company of her acceptance, as acceptance is only complete with full performance. Moreover, the
judges also disregarded the example if the smoke ball was stolen and then the company would
have no disadvantage, but the judges agreed there would be an advantage if the stolen smoke
balls did not cause any contraction of the flu, then it will only increase the validity of the
product.
Therefore, I agree with final judgment and believe that there was an intention to create a legal
relation and that there is a valid contract.