Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
*Emphasised the significance of offer and acceptance in contract law; distinguishes between
offers and invitations to treat.
Facts
The defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, placed an advertisement in a newspaper for
their products, stating that any person who purchased and used their product but still contracted
influenza despite properly following the instructions would be entitled to a £100 reward. The
advert further stated that the company had demonstrated its sincerity by placing £1000 in a bank
account to act as the reward. The claimant, Mrs Carlill, thus purchased some smoke balls and,
despite proper use, contracted influenza and attempted to claim the £100 reward from the
defendants. The defendants contended that they could not be bound by the advert as it was an
invitation to treat rather than an offer on the grounds that the advert was: mere ‘puff’ and
lacking true intent; that an offer could not be made ‘to the world’; the claimant had not
technically provided acceptance; the wording of the advert was insufficiently precise; and, that
there was no consideration, as necessary for the creation of a binding contract in law.
Issue
1. Whether the advert in question constituted an offer or an invitation to treat.
2. Whether or not there was a binding contract between the parties.
3. Whether or not there was a notification of acceptance of the offer.
4. Whether or not the consideration was provided in exchange for the £100 rewards.
Defendants argument
(1) The defendant argued that there was no binding contract between the company and Mrs.
Carlill as the words of the advertisement did not amount to a promise because of the following
reasons:
-The advertisement was too vague to make a contract and there was no limit as to time & no
means of checking of the product usage by the consumers.
-The term are too vague to make a contract no limit as to time by which a person can claim that
they contacted flu 10 years after using the remedy.
-There was no contract because a contract requires communication of intention to accept the
offer or performance of some overt act or the approval had actually not been interacted to the
defendant.
Plaintiff’s argument
The plaintiff`s argument was that she just followed the instructions and guideline given on the
newspaper. The advertisement was an offer that they were under an obligation to fulfill because
it was published so it would be read and acted upon and it was not an empty boast.
The promise was likewise not vague as in there was clearly mentioned about everything and
there was consideration available.
Held
The Court of Appeal found for the claimant, determining that the advert amounted to the offer
for a unilateral contract by the defendants. In completing the conditions stipulated by the advert,
Mrs Carlill provided acceptance. The Court further found that: the advert’s own claim to sincerity
negated the company’s assertion of lacking intent; an offer could indeed be made to the world;
wording need only be reasonably clear to imply terms rather than entirely clear; and
consideration was identifiable in the use of the balls.
Conclusion
-Offer can be Unilateral: In the case the advertisement was a unilateral offer but limited to those
who had fulfilled the condition.
-Essence to create a binding contract: The judge (Lindley & Bowen) had claimed that there was
offer and acceptance to establish a contract. Offer: reward of £100 and Acceptance: Mrs. Carlill
had bought and had used the smoke ball.