Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
(conscience case study)
When was the appeal heard?
7th Dec 1892
Where was it heard?
Court of Appeal
Who were the judges who heard the appeal?
LJ: Lindley, Bowen and Al Smith
The names of the parties and their relevant relationship between them:
Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Mrs Carlill was a customer of the Smoke
Ball Co. who purchased one of their smoke balls to supposedly prevent
influenza.
Who were the lawyers to each party?
Appellant; Field and Roscoe (solicitors,) Finlay QC, T Terrell (Counsel)
Defendant; J Banks Pittman(solicitors,) Dickens QC, WB Allen (Counsel)
The material facts of the case:
Mrs Carlil bought a smoke ball and used it in the described way and still
caught influenza. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. had advertised that if anyone
used it correctly and still caught influenza they could claim £100. Mrs Carlill
went to claim the money but was denied said payment.
Why Mrs Carlill’s lawyers argued there was a contract between the parties:
The £1000 had been placed in a bank account proving there was an intention
to be bound to the offer otherwise the money wouldn’t have been put a side.
Arguments submitted on behalf of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.:
There was no intention to be bound, it was a marketing factor not legal.
Too vague an advertisement, no time limit to the offer
What was the decision of the judge at first instance?
No claim
What decision did the Court of Appeal reach?
The advertisement was an offer, and therefore legally binding, because there
was sufficient consideration.
The significance of the money deposited with the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co’s
bankers:
Showed sincerity that the carbolic smoke ball Co. was willing to be bound by
the offer.
1
(conscience case study)
When was the appeal heard?
7th Dec 1892
Where was it heard?
Court of Appeal
Who were the judges who heard the appeal?
LJ: Lindley, Bowen and Al Smith
The names of the parties and their relevant relationship between them:
Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Mrs Carlill was a customer of the Smoke
Ball Co. who purchased one of their smoke balls to supposedly prevent
influenza.
Who were the lawyers to each party?
Appellant; Field and Roscoe (solicitors,) Finlay QC, T Terrell (Counsel)
Defendant; J Banks Pittman(solicitors,) Dickens QC, WB Allen (Counsel)
The material facts of the case:
Mrs Carlil bought a smoke ball and used it in the described way and still
caught influenza. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. had advertised that if anyone
used it correctly and still caught influenza they could claim £100. Mrs Carlill
went to claim the money but was denied said payment.
Why Mrs Carlill’s lawyers argued there was a contract between the parties:
The £1000 had been placed in a bank account proving there was an intention
to be bound to the offer otherwise the money wouldn’t have been put a side.
Arguments submitted on behalf of the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.:
There was no intention to be bound, it was a marketing factor not legal.
Too vague an advertisement, no time limit to the offer
What was the decision of the judge at first instance?
No claim
What decision did the Court of Appeal reach?
The advertisement was an offer, and therefore legally binding, because there
was sufficient consideration.
The significance of the money deposited with the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co’s
bankers:
Showed sincerity that the carbolic smoke ball Co. was willing to be bound by
the offer.
1
