CARLILL V.

CARBOLIC SMOKE BALLS COMPANY

SUMMARY

The Plaintiff bought a Carbolic Smoke Ball and used it as instructed from
November 20, 1891, until January 17, 1892, when she developed the flu,
believing the Defendant's marketing that its product would prevent influenza.
Plaintiff sued to reclaim the 100 euros, which the court determined she was
entitled to. Defendant filed an appeal. This case examines whether an advertising
gimmick (e.g., the promise of a £100 payment to anyone who contracts influenza
while using the Carbolic Smoke Ball) can be regarded an express contractual
commitment to pay.

[1892] Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company EWCA Civ 1 is a UK Court of

Appeals contract decision. Carlyl is frequently regarded as a preliminary contract
case, and it is frequently a law student's first proceeding. The medical firm claims
that its new miraculous treatment, smokeball, will cure the flu and that if it
doesn't, the buyer will receive £ 100. Carbolic claimed that advertising was not a
serious and legally binding offer when sued. It was only a lick and a gimmick
invitation. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found Carbolic's serious offer
to be reasonable. People made solid "reasoning" to it by addressing the "severe
difficulty" of utilising defective products.

CASE FACTS

Court Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Full Case Name Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company
Date Decided 8th December 1892
Citations [1892] EWCA Civil 1,

LAB ASSIGNMENT-I | 21111045

 [1893] 1 QB 256
Judges Lindley LJ,
Bowen LJ
And AL Smith LJ
Prior Actions Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
[1892] 2 QB 484
Defendant Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

"Smoke Ball" was a product created by the firm. It purported to be a treatment

for influenza and a variety of other diseases during the 1889-1890 flu pandemic,
which killed an estimated 1 million people. A tube was attached to the aperture
of the smoke ball, which was made of rubber. Carbolic acid is inside the ball
(Phenol). The tube should be put into one of your nostrils, and the rubber ball's
bottom should be pushed. The gas enters your lungs and flushes out all of the
viruses.

LEGAL

The Court of Appeal held in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, a case that is
frequently cited as a leading case in the common law of contract, that an
advertisement containing specific terms for receiving a reward is considered a
binding unilateral offer that is accepted by anyone who fulfils its terms.

JUDGEMENT

Mrs. Carlill was awarded £ 100 in damages after the appeal was unanimously
dismissed by all three judges. She is currently 96 years old. On March 10, 1942,
she passed away. Her doctor says it's mostly due to her age. One cause, however,
has been identified: influenza. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Owner Roe continued to
market aggressively. After losing the lawsuit, he boosted his incentive to 200
euros. However, in this case, the defendant included a deposit of 1000 euros in

LAB ASSIGNMENT-I | 21111045

their advertisement as a sign of their seriousness. The Court determined that
Defendant's commitment to award was a promise substantiated by their own
sincerity because they did so.

CONCLUSION

This is the most commonly referenced case in contract law, particularly in the
context of unilateral contracts. It is a thorough examination of the fundamental
ideas of contract and how they apply in everyday life. In this case, essential
contract aspects such as Offer and Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to Create
Legal Relations, and others were highlighted. This case established Contract Law
as a whole. While sales puffery in advertising is typically not meant to form a
contract with potential product buyers, it did in this case because the Defendant
elevated their words to the level of a promise by relying on their own sincerity.

LAB ASSIGNMENT-I | 21111045