Introduction to Legal Reasoning

DR FAIZA ISMAIL
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
[1893]

Facts
Issues
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion
 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893]

“₤100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball

Company to any person who contracts the influenza
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, showing our
sincerity in the matter.”
 Facts

1. The defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of London (Defendant),

placed an advertisement in several newspapers on November 13, 1891, stating
that its product, “The Carbolic Smoke Ball”, when used three times daily, for two
weeks, would prevent colds and influenza.
2. The makers of the smoke ball additionally offered a £100 reward to anyone who
caught influenza using their product, guaranteeing this reward by stating in their
advertisement that they had deposited £1000 in the bank as a show of their
sincerity.
3. The Plaintiff, Lilli Carlill (Plaintiff), bought a smoke ball and used it as directed.
Several weeks after she began using the smoke ball, plaintiff caught the flu.
 Issues

1- Whether the advertisement was intended to be an offer at all, or whether it was a

mere puff or an invitation to treat?
2- If it was an offer, then
Was it made to entire world?
Is an offer made to general public binding?
How long was it valid?
What is a reasonable time for the validity of the offer?
Does the acceptance have to be notified?
Was there any consideration?
 Rule
Williams v. Carwardine 4 B & Ad 621- applied to interpret the advertisement.

Gerhard v. Bates 2 E & B 476- distinguished for consideration.

 Analysis
1-Court held there was certainly an offer as per language of the advertisement i.e.
“₤100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who
contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks
according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.”
Intention to create a valid offer is clarified by the statement, “₤ 1000 is deposited with
the Alliance Bank, showing our sincerity in the matter.”
2- Under Williams v. Carwardine 4 B & Ad 621, in point of law this advertisement is an
offer to pay ₤100 to anybody who will perform these conditions, and the performance
of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer.
 Analysis
3- Then the court looked into the matter whether the offer was an indefinite offer made to entire
world? Lindley and Smith LJs identified three constructions of the ad as an offer

First, possibly it may be limited to persons catching the increasing epidemic (that is, the then
prevailing epidemic), or any colds or diseases caused by taking cold, during the prevalence of the
increasing epidemic.

Another suggested meaning is that you are warranted free from catching this epidemic, or colds or
other diseases caused by taking cold, whilst you are using this remedy and after using it for two
weeks. If that is the meaning, the plaintiff is right, for she used the remedy for two weeks and went
on using it till she got the epidemic.

Another meaning, and the one which I (Lindley) rather prefer, is that the reward is offered to any
person who contracts the epidemic or other disease within a reasonable time after having used the
smoke ball.
 Analysis
4- What is reasonable time?
It strikes me that a reasonable time may be ascertained
◦ In a business sense and in a sense satisfactory to a lawyer, in this way; and
◦ Out from a chemist what the ingredients are; and
◦ Out from a skilled physician how long the effect of such ingredients on the system could be
reasonably expected to endure so as to protect a person from an epidemic or cold, and
In that way you will get a standard to be laid before a jury, or a judge without a jury, by which they
might exercise their judgment as to what a reasonable time would be.
5- The person who makes the offer shows by his language and from the nature of the transaction
that he does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance apart from notice of the
performance. Bowen LJ said that a person making such extravagant promise binds himself in an
obligation regardless of the fact that there is no way to inspect if the customer used the smoke ball as
per instructions or used it at all.
 Analysis
6- Valid consideration for the advertiser
It is quite obvious that in the view of the advertisers a use by the public of their
remedy, if they can only get the public to have confidence enough to use it, will
react and produce a sale which is directly beneficial to them. Therefore, the
advertisers get out of the use an advantage which is enough to constitute a
consideration. Lindley LJ, distinguished Gerhard v. Bates 2 E & B 476 with the
case in hand on question of consideration.
 Analysis
In the concurrences of Bowen L.J. and A.L. Smith, L.J., the notion of contractual
consideration also becomes an issue of relevance. Both of these Judges note that while
the defendant could argue lack of consideration, plaintiff, in buying the carbolic smoke
ball and using it as directed, provided adequate consideration through the inconvenience
she experienced by using the product.
Defendant’s Appeal was dismissed, plaintiff was entitled to recover 100£.

The court acknowledged that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding
payment of a reward is generally a puff, which carries no enforceability. In this case,
however, defendant noted the deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as a show of their
sincerity. Because defendant did this, the court found their offer to reward to be a
promise, backed by their own sincerity.