Everything about Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company totally explained
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is a landmark case in
English contract law, specifically the law of unilateral
offers.
Background
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called a smoke ball that it claimed could protect the user from contracting
influenza. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with
carbolic acid (phenol). The tube was then inserted into the user's nose. It was squeezed at the bottom to release the
vapours into the nose of the user. This would cause the nose to run, and hopefully flush out the cold. In fact the
inflammation caused by the device would have probably increased susceptibility to catching influenza.
The Company published advertisements claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.
They stated:
Mrs Carlill, relying on the promises made in the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it in the manner specified, yet still managed to contract influenza.
Ruling
The Carbolic Company claimed that there was no enforceable contract between it and the user of the smoke ball on the grounds that there was no
acceptance of its offer, because Mrs Carlill had never notified the Company that she accepted its offer, nor furnished any
consideration, since the Company didn't receive any benefit from a purchaser's use of the product once the sale had been completed.
The court rejected both arguments, ruling that the advertisement was an offer of a
unilateral contract between the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and anyone who satisfies the conditions set out in the advertisement. Once Mrs Carlill had satisfied the conditions she was entitled to enforcement of the contract; the notification of performance of the conditions formed part of the acceptance. Furthermore, weight was placed on the £1000 bank deposit that claimed to 'shew[sic] their sincerity in the matter' in showing that the advertisement wasn't just a puff.
As to consideration, the Court of Appeal held that there was consideration on two grounds. The first was the benefit that the defendants gained as a result of the use of the smoke ball in response to the advertisements and the sales produced thereby. The second was that the use by Mrs Carlill of the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks constituted a detriment so that she'd provided consideration for the defendants' promise.
Later influence
The case was quoted extensively in the famous "
Pepsi Points case",
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.,
88 F.Supp.2d 116 (
S.D.N.Y 1996), wherein presiding Judge
Kimba Wood wrote:
Further Information
Get more info on 'Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://carlill_v__carbolic_smoke_ball_company.totallyexplained.com">Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
