HIRA BIBI

2020-LLB-027
 01
INTRODUC
TION
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company
 TITLE AND CITATION OF
THE CASE
The case full name is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. Legal
citation of the case is [1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256 (CA). The
case was applied in court of appeal and the judges were Lindley LJ,
Bowen LJ and AL Smith L. The case was decided on 7 December
1893.
 INTERNATIONAL ANTI-
CORRUPTION DAY

In Carlill v Carbolic In this case the company made a flu

The plaintiff lady Mrs.
Smoke Ball Co a decision cure called the carbolic smoke ball.
Louisa Elizabeth Carlill
frequently cited as a As portion of its advertisement
purchased the item on the
prominent case within the expressed that clients would be
faith of advertisement
common law of contract. granted £100 in case they found it
did not work.
 PERSONAL BENEFIT

The plaintiff lady Mrs. At the point when the

Louisa Elizabeth Carlill company rejected the
purchased the item on payout Mrs. Carlill sued.
the faith of
advertisement

The Court of Appeal

held that an
• Fundamental components of a
advertisement
contract,
containing specific
• consideration
terms to get a reward is
• intention to create lawful relations
considered a binding
unilateral offer
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
At the trial stage, Justice Hawkins held that Mrs. Carlill was
entitled to recover the reward. The defendant appealed In
affirming the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal
held that the advertisement amounted to an offer made to any
person who performs the conditions set out in the advertisement
and that the offer was accepted when a person performs those
conditions.

L.J. Lindley and L.J. Bowen

 Decision
02
Hence, Mrs. Carlill had accepted the offer when she
performed the specified conditions, thereby giving
rise to a legally binding contract with the defendants,
So she should compensate the required amount.