Bibi Ettema
Dori Bajma
Francesca Recht
Jagoda Frost
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
Case Facts
Held
The Defence
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
"There was no binding contract. They argued that, while the words in the advertisement expressed an intention, they did not amount to a promise."
Mrs. Cardill entitled to reward:
- advert amounts to offer of unilateral contract
- accepted by performing conditions stated in the offer
Rejection of arguments by defendants:
- language not too vague
- consideration in form of benefit for the company + inconvenience for Mrs. Cardill
- no communication needed
- offer can be made to the world
- not a mere sales puff
- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the Carbolic Smoke Ball to prevent illnesses like influenza.
- In their advertisement it was stated that if someone gets sick, this person will get a reward of 100 pounds.
- Mrs Carlill bought one, and used it as directed from 20th November 1891 to 17th January 1892, but she got sick anyway, therefore, she claimed her reward.
- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co refused to pay the reward, so Mrs Carlill sued them.
- The advertisement was too vague;
- No consideration;
- Communication of intention to accept the offer or performance of some overt act merely performing an act in private ≠ sufficient;
- 'Wagering' contract void.
Ratio
The Claim
Legal Issue
- Unilateral offer to the world, performance is the same as acceptance, if the other party performs the conditions, there is no need for notification.
Mrs Carlill:
"there was a contract between the parties, based on the company's advertisement and her reliance on it in purchasing and using the Smoke Ball."
- Was there a binding contract between the parties?
- Did the advert in question constitute an offer or an invitation to treat?
• The advertisement was an offer; it was designed to be read and acted upon and was not an empty boast.
• The advertisement was made to the public and as soon as a person does the specified act there is a contract.
• The terms are not too vague and uncertain.