Carlill V Carbolic Smoke ball Co
Carlill V carbolic smoke ball company (1892) EWCA civ 1, is an english contract law decision made
by the court of appeal , which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward
constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is
notable for its curious subject matter and how influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bower LJ)
developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case,
and may often be the first legal case a law student studying in the law of contract.
The case concerned a flu remedy called the “carbolic smoke ball”. The manufacturer advertised that
buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the
time. The company was then found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed
as an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract. The court of
appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer acceptance,
consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the smoke ball and claimed it to be a cue
for influenza and a number of other diseases. (the 1889-1890 flu pandemic was estimated to have
killed 1 million people) the smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with
carbolic acid (phenol). The tube would be inserted into a users nose and squeezed at the bottom to
release the vapours. The nose would run, ostensibly flushing out viral infections
The company published advertisements on november 13th 1891 claiming to pay £100 to anyone who
got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions provided with it.
Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times
daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third
request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company
had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent
claims", they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the
secretary. Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the
advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between the company and her, so the company
ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract.
Judgement
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, represented by H. H. Asquith, lost its argument at the Queen's
Bench. It appealed straight away. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's
arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs. Carlill. Among the
reasons given by the three judges were (1) that the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to all the
world but an offer restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement (2)
that satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constitutes acceptance of the offer (3) that
purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constitute good consideration, because it was a distinct
detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls
by relying on the advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic (4) that the company's claim that
£1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound. The
judgments of the court were as follows.
Carlill V carbolic smoke ball company (1892) EWCA civ 1, is an english contract law decision made
by the court of appeal , which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward
constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is
notable for its curious subject matter and how influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bower LJ)
developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case,
and may often be the first legal case a law student studying in the law of contract.
The case concerned a flu remedy called the “carbolic smoke ball”. The manufacturer advertised that
buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the
time. The company was then found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed
as an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract. The court of
appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer acceptance,
consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the smoke ball and claimed it to be a cue
for influenza and a number of other diseases. (the 1889-1890 flu pandemic was estimated to have
killed 1 million people) the smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with
carbolic acid (phenol). The tube would be inserted into a users nose and squeezed at the bottom to
release the vapours. The nose would run, ostensibly flushing out viral infections
The company published advertisements on november 13th 1891 claiming to pay £100 to anyone who
got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions provided with it.
Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times
daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third
request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company
had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent
claims", they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the
secretary. Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the
advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between the company and her, so the company
ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract.
Judgement
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, represented by H. H. Asquith, lost its argument at the Queen's
Bench. It appealed straight away. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's
arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs. Carlill. Among the
reasons given by the three judges were (1) that the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to all the
world but an offer restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement (2)
that satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constitutes acceptance of the offer (3) that
purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constitute good consideration, because it was a distinct
detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls
by relying on the advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic (4) that the company's claim that
£1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound. The
judgments of the court were as follows.
