Home > Case Studies > Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball: A Case Study

Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball: A Case Study

By: Lorna Elliott LLB (hons), Barrister - Updated: 25 Oct 2012 |
 
Carlill Carbolic Smoke Ball Contract

The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball is one of the most important cases in English legal history. In essence it defined what it is to create an ‘offer’ in an advertisement, and how a member of the public successfully argued that they had ‘accepted’ the offer and performed under the terms of the advertisement (contract.)

Facts of the Case

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1891 that their Carbolic Smoke Ball was a cure for flu, bronchitis, coughs, colds, headaches, hay-fever, whooping cough, laryngitis and sore throats amongst others.

It was so confident of the usefulness of the carbolic smoke ball, and its ability not only to cure but also to prevent someone from getting the ‘flu, that it advertised on the following basis: Anyone who used the carbolic smoke ball in a particular way for a specified period of time, but who still caught influenza afterwards, would be entitled to claim £100 from the company.

The advertisement went on to say that the company had gone so far as to deposit £1000 in the Alliance Bank in the event of any such claims. The plaintiff (who nowadays would be called the ‘claimant’) saw the advertisement and decided to buy one of the carbolic smoke balls. She used it exactly as advised, but still caught influenza. She took the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to court in order to claim her £100. The court found in her favour, but the defendants appealed.

The Defendant’s Case

On appeal, the defendant’s case was that there was no binding contract between the parties. The defendant company had no means of checking the ball, or of establishing whether the plaintiff had in fact used the ball as directed. They also said that the plaintiff had not provided any consideration, and that merely doing an act in private (i.e. following instructions) would not be enough.

They argued, in the alternative, that if the court found there to be a contract, that contract was no more than a ‘wagering contract’ in which liability was purely determined on one issue – whether the plaintiff caught influenza or not - in which case it would be void, or that if it was an insurance policy that it was ‘bad’ because it relied on whether or not there would be an occurrence of an uncertain event. However, the court did not consider that the ‘wager’ or ‘insurance’ arguments were valid.

The Judgment

The plaintiff argued that the advertisement constituted an offer, which could be accepted by anyone who saw it. The court agreed with the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The advertisement was a promise to pay any person who took up the offer the sum of £100 if they caught the influenza despite having used the smoke ball as directed. The plaintiff provided the consideration required to form part of the contract in their continued use of the carbolic smoke ball.

Usage Today

The effects of this judgment are still felt today. If you lose a family pet and put up a poster offering a reward for its safe return, you are providing an ‘offer’ which someone may accept, if they find your pet safe and well. Similarly, the police offer rewards to ‘anyone’ who can provide information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of a suspect in a criminal investigation. If a member of the public provides that information, and the police are as a result able to arrest/secure a conviction against the wanted person, the reward money will become payable.

You might also like...
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice..
The passage of the court is true.i will do my best to apply it in my business
Albert zakarony - 25-Oct-12 @ 9:16 PM
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice...
Title:
(never shown)
Firstname:
(never shown)
Surname:
(never shown)
Email:
(never shown)
Nickname:
(shown)
Comment:
Validate:
Enter word:
Latest Comments
  • Husein
    Re: Contracts and Self Employment
    I am a self employed and working in Amazon last 6 month as delivery driver through RAM distribution Company.Unexpected called me…
    10 January 2020
  • Husein
    Re: Contracts and Self Employment
    I am a self employed and working in Amazon last 6 month as delivery driver through RAM distribution Company.Unexpected called me…
    10 January 2020
  • Libby
    Re: Title Deeds: Who Keeps Them?
    My grandfather purchased the freehold on 4 properties in Sheffield sometime before 1950. These were inherited by my father and…
    9 January 2020
  • Ma eee
    Re: Engagement Contracts
    Can i sue him for breechbof promise, we dated for 8yrs, i proposed and he accepted, i bought him a ring...Later he proposed and also i…
    9 January 2020
  • Vulnerablemother
    Re: The Law & Verbal Agreements
    Help. First time mum, at the time baby was 5 months old and husband was being made redundant all of which the plumber knew. I…
    7 January 2020
  • Jud
    Re: Changing a Contract
    Hi I've worked for my company for 14 years on nights Sunday to Thursday now they say I've got to do my hours over 7 days with roted days…
    30 December 2019
  • Shikdar
    Re: Marriage Contracts
    I am Mamun Rashid. I have five sisters and no brother. My tow elder sisters are living in UK.. Nowadays i am planing to go uk with a spouse visa.
    10 December 2019
  • Machine1uk
    Re: Contracts for Goods: Your Statutory Rights
    I purchased a vehicle through a finance company from a dealer. I broke down 2 weeks later and contacted the…
    3 December 2019
  • Sam
    Re: What If I Don't Have a Written Contract With My Employer?
    is this still active for questions to be answered?
    28 November 2019
  • Mar
    Re: Title Deeds: Who Keeps Them?
    I bought my council, It was paid out right, When do I get my deeds to the house Thank you
    25 November 2019