CARLILL VS CARBOLIC SMOKE

BALL CO.(1893)1QB 256

 OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

• In 1891, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised the "Carbolic

Smoke Ball" in various newspapers. The advertisement claimed that
using the smoke ball as directed would prevent users from contracting
influenza. The company also stated that it would pay £100 to anyone
who purchased the smoke ball, used it as directed for a specified period,
and still contracted influenza
 SIGNIFICANCE IN
CONTRACT LAW

The Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company case holds significant importance in
the realm of contract law, and its impact extends beyond the specific facts of the
case. Here are some key aspects of its significance:
Unilateral Contracts: The case is a landmark decision in establishing the
1.
concept of unilateral contracts. A unilateral contract is formed when one party
makes a promise in exchange for the other party's performance. In this case, Mrs.
Carlill accepted the offer by using the smoke ball as directed, and her
performance constituted acceptance.
Offers to the Public: The ruling clarified the enforceability of offers made to the
2.
public at large through advertisements. The court held that the Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company's advertisement was not a mere puff or sales talk but a specific
offer to the public, and individuals who performed the specified conditions could
enforce the terms of the offer.
Specificity of Terms: The case emphasized the importance of clear and specific
3.
terms in forming a contract. The court focused on the fact that the advertisement
provided clear instructions and made a specific promise of a reward, leading to
the formation of a legally binding contract.
Legal Precedent: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company has been widely cited
4.
in subsequent contract law cases and is considered a foundational precedent. It is
often used in legal education to illustrate principles related to offer and
acceptance, unilateral contracts, and the enforceability of promises in
advertisements.
Consumer Protection: The case has implications for consumer protection, as it
5.
upholds the idea that companies making specific promises to consumers through
advertisements can be held legally accountable for those promises. It contributes
to a framework that encourages honesty and clarity in advertising
 CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO.

• The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was a 19th-century British company

known for its product, the Carbolic Smoke Ball. The company gained
widespread recognition due to a landmark legal case, Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company, which had significant implications for contract law
• The Carbolic Smoke Ball was a product marketed as a medical device to
prevent and treat influenza and other diseases. It took the form of a rubber ball
with a tube, and users were instructed to insert the tube into their nostrils and
squeeze the ball, releasing a vapor that they were led to believe would provide
protection against influenza
 ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE CLAIMS
MADE

• In 1891, the company published an advertisement in various

newspapers, claiming that using the Carbolic Smoke Ball as directed
would prevent users from contracting influenza. The advertisement also
stated that the company would pay £100 to anyone who, after
purchasing the smoke ball and using it according to the instructions,
still contracted influenza
 CLAIMS MADE

1. Efficacy Claim:
1. Company's Claim: The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company asserted in its advertisement that using the Carbolic Smoke Ball as
directed would prevent users from contracting influenza. This was a bold and specific claim about the effectiveness of their
product in preventing a particular disease.
2. Reward Offer:
2. Company’s Claim: The company stated in the advertisement that it would pay £100 to anyone who purchased the Carbolic Smoke
Ball, used it as directed for a specified period, and still contracted influenza. This was a clear promise of a reward for those who
followed the instructions and yet fell ill.
3. Advertisement as an Offer:
3. Mrs. Carlill’s Claim: Mrs. Carlill, having seen the advertisement, claimed that the company’s statements in the advertisement
constituted a legally binding offer. She argued that she had accepted this offer by purchasing the smoke ball and using it as directed.
4. Breach of Contract:
4. Mrs. Carlill's Claim: Mrs. Carlill contended that, as she had fulfilled the conditions specified in the advertisement (using the smoke
ball as directed and still contracting influenza), the company was obligated to fulfill its promise of paying £100. Failure to do so
constituted a breach of contract.
5. Enforceability of Advertisements:
5. Mrs. Carlill's Claim: Mrs. Carlill's legal team argued that the company's advertisement was not a mere puff or sales talk but a
specific offer to the public, and as she had accepted the offer through performance, the terms of the contract were binding