Authored By: Amaechi Kamsiyochukwu Eileen Ngoma
Afebabalola University
Case Title & Citation
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256.
Court Name & Bench
Court: Court of Appeal, England and Wales.
Bench: Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ, and A.L. Smith LJ.
Date of Judgment
Date: 7 December 1892.
Parties:
Plaintiff/ Appellant: Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill – a member of the public who relied on the company’s advertisement and used the smoke ball as directed.
Defendant/ Respondent: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company– a company marketing a medicinal smoke ball claiming to prevent influenza.
Facts of the Case
– The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company published an advertisement promising to pay £100 to anyone who used their smoke ball three times daily for two weeks and still contracted influenza.
-The company stated it had deposited £1,000 in a bank to show its sincerity
– Mrs. Carlill used the smoke ball as per instructions and nonetheless caught influenza.
-When she claimed the £100, the company refused, leading her to sue for breach of contract.
Issues raised
– Whether there was a valid and enforceable contract between Mrs. Carlill and the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company based on the advertisement?
– Whether or not Mrs. Carlill’s use of the smoke ball constitute acceptance of the offer?
– Whether there was consideration for the promise?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff (Carlill):
– Argued the advertisement was a unilateral offer accepted by her conduct (using the smoke ball).
– She fulfilled the conditions, thus forming a binding contract.
– Her use and risk constituted valid consideration.
Defendant (Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.):
– Claimed the advertisement was mere sales puff and not meant to be legally binding.
– Argued no notification of acceptance was received, hence no contract.
– Asserted lack of consideration and intention to create legal relations.
Judgment
– The Court of Appeal held in favour of Mrs. Carlill.
– The court ruled there was a valid unilateral contract.
– The company was ordered to pay the £100 as promised.
Legal Reasoning
– The court held that the advertisement constituted a unilateral offer to the world, which could be accepted by anyone who performed the conditions stated in the offer.
– Mrs. Carlill’s actions (using the smoke ball as directed and still contracting influenza) fulfilled the condition and therefore constituted acceptance.
– The court dismissed the argument that there was no intention to be legally bound, citing the deposit of £1,000 by the company in a bank as evidence of seriousness.
– The offer did not require Mrs. Carlill to notify the company of acceptance in advance since performance constituted acceptance in unilateral contracts.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Rule)
A unilateral offer can be accepted by conduct, and performance of the conditions in a public offer constitutes valid acceptance, creating a binding contract, especially where intention to be legally bound is demonstrated.
Obiter Dicta
The judges also commented that general advertisements are not usually offers, but this one was specific and included clear terms, making it different from ordinary marketing puff.
Conclusion
-This case is a cornerstone in contract law, especially concerning unilateral contracts, acceptance by conduct, and intention to create legal relations.
-It clarified that advertisements can constitute offers if they show clear intent.
-The ruling strengthened consumer protection against deceptive advertisements.
