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
  • Gwen
    Re: The Law & Verbal Agreements
    I was renting an adjacent paddock to mine from a neighbour and had to replace dangerous fencing between my field, garden and…
    13 June 2019
  • Flower
    Re: Legally Binding Contracts
    My buissnes partner made me sighn a 50 50 joint ownership when I was majority shareholder how do I stand?
    12 June 2019
  • dibzy
    Re: The Law & Verbal Agreements
    after a verbal agreement with my cusion that my mother could be buried with her sister in law (she died 31 years ago ) my…
    10 June 2019
  • MTri
    Re: Gym Contracts Explained
    I'm a member at my local gym, where they require 2 months notice before leaving it. I recently cancelled my direct debit because I'd…
    8 June 2019
  • rachelgreen
    Re: The Law & Verbal Agreements
    Wonderful article on business which are one of the most common & convenient short-term business that are during financial…
    3 June 2019
  • Rana
    Re: Unfairness in Contracts
    on 9/3/2019 I phone sky to find out price for sports package for a small bar. I was told it would be about £1017 per month. I said that…
    12 May 2019
  • Rana
    Re: Unfairness in Contracts
    on 9/3/2019 I phone sky to find out price for sports package for a small bar. I was told it would be about £1017 per month. I said that…
    12 May 2019
  • S'DUMO
    Re: Title Deeds: Who Keeps Them?
    I HAVE PAID MY HOUSE IN FULL THAT WAS 2012,WHEN I WAS RETRENCHED FROM MY PREVIOUS JOB.I WASN'T TOLD WHEN I PAID THE HOUSE IN FULL…
    9 May 2019
  • trish
    Re: What Are T.U.P.E Claims?
    we were tuped just over 2 years ago and have heard that the new employer is now selling the business. staff have been told nothing by…
    8 May 2019
  • Djs210664
    Re: Contracts and Self Employment
    I have worked as a self employed operations manager for 2 years 5 months 5 days a week 40 hours a week and I have just been told…
    5 May 2019