Name : Kadek Novia Karismayanthi

Student Id : 012022090842

1. Facts of the Case

Answer :
 The Defendant made an advertisement in the newspaper that they would offer a
sum of money to anyone who would still suffer from influenza after using their
product. The Plaintiff used the product according to the instruction, but still
became ill. Defendant refused to pay.
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English
contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which 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.

2. Principle of the Case :

What is the principle in Carlill v carbolic smoke ball?
Answer :
 In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, a decision often cited as a leading case in the
common law of contract, the Court of Appeal held that an advertisement
containing particular terms to get a reward is considered a binding unilateral offer
that is accepted by anyone who completes its terms.
 Invitation to treat refers to merely inducement to the general public so that they
will come forward to make an offer. invitation to treat is not an offer but merely
providing information to the public.
 Although as a general rule communication of acceptance is required, the offeror
may dispense with the need for notification and has done so in this case. Here, it
was implicit that the offeree (Mrs Carlill) did not need to communicate an
 intention to accept; rather acceptance occurred through performance of the
requested acts (using the smoke ball).
 There was consideration; the inconvenience suffered by Mrs Carlill in using the
smokeball as directed was sufficient consideration. In addition, the Carbolic
Smoke Ball received a benefit in having people use the smoke ball.
 Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward. There was a unilateral contract comprising
the offer (by advertisement) of the Carbolic Smoke Ball company and the
acceptance by performance of conditions stated in the offer) by Mrs Carlill.

3. Judgement by the court

Answer :
 Emphasised the significance of offer and acceptance in contract law; distinguishes
between offers and invitations to treat.