Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

1. THE IMPORTANCE OF
CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY (1893)
QB 256 IN THE STUDY OF CONTRACT LAW.
Leong Lee Min 0336594
Tay Pei Ying 0336287
Dong Li Xian 0336825
Ong Ji Shian 0335733

2. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]

3. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]
- The Court of Appeal rejected the company's arguments because...
The advertisement was a unilateral offer to all the world.
The satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball
constituted acceptance of the offer.
That purchasing or merely using the smoke ball
constituted good consideration.
The company's claim that £1000 was deposited
at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention
to be legally bound.

4. Why is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co. important in Contract Law?

5. - The advertisement was a unilateral offer but only limited to those
who had fulfilled the condition.
Unilateral contract
- One party.
- Offer can be made to world at large.
Offer can be
UNILATERAL
Communication is not necessary

6. Why it is necessary to enforce?
Unilateral contract = Enforceable
If not enforceable,
- No guarantee for customers like Mrs. Carllil and without
which they would never buy the products.
- Economy and social working will be disturbed because of the
absence of reliance among parties to work together.

7. Distinguish between offer and invitation to treat
Offer Invitation to treat
-Made when a person shows a
willingness to enter into a legally
binding contract
-An action inviting other parties to
make an offer to form a contract
-A definite promise to be bound -Not an offer
-If the offer is accepted by offeree a
legally binding contract is created.
-Not legally binding
-“accepting” an invitation to treat is
actually making an offer

8. Communication of acceptance is not necessary
If there is an offer to the world at large,
and that offer does not expressly or
impliedly require the notification of
performance, the performance of
specified condition in the offer will
constitute the acceptance of the offer
and consideration for the promise.

9. - An advertisement with vague statement and promise can turned out
to be a legal and binding contract like the case of Carlill V Carbolic
Smoke ball.
- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co claim that it was merely invitation to treat
for as their promotional tool for their smoke ball as a remedy for
influenza epidemic
- Invite people to look at it as an offer where they could get rewarded
100 pounds and 1000 pounds deposited at the Alliance Bank and
accepted it with consideration.
Analysis of the case

10. Reason :
1. Carbolic Smoke Ball received a benefit in having people use
the smoke ball.
2. The direct inconvenience to the person who uses the
smoke ball 3 times a day x 2 weeks according to the
directions at the request of Carbolic.
Consideration

11. to pay Carlill the 100 pounds.
The plaintiff ( Carlill ) must show that she has but still did
not recover from the flu.
The inconvenience suffered by Mrs Carlill in using the smokeball as
directed was sufficient consideration.
Executed Consideration

12. The advertisement shown was not “mere puff”
Why?
Company’s claim: £1000 was deposited at the Alliance bank
Showed the serious to be legally bound
Intention To Create Legal Relations

13. Conclusion
Why is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. important in contract law?
1. Offer can be unilateral
2. The element required for a contract to be legal were mentioned:
a. Offer
b. Acceptance
c. Intention to create legal relations
d. Consideration

14. Reference
- Bee_by Follow. (2017, November 22). Importance of carlill v carbolic smoke ball. Retrieved
from https://www.slideshare.net/bee_by/importance-of-carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co.php
- Carlill vs Smoke Ball. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/presentation/29147007/Carlill-vs-Smoke-Ball
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contr
act-law-essay.php
- Case Study: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893). (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-company-1893/

15. - “Distinguish between an Offer and an Invitation to Treat. Give Examples to Illustrate the
Distinction.” Retrieved from
www.123writing.com/free-sample/distinguish-between-an-offer-and-an-invitation-to-treat-giv
ing-examples-to-illustrate-the-distinction.
- Fatima d Follow. (2014, June 03). Lecture 13 contract law. Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/fatimad1/lecture-13-contract-law
- It is necessary to enforce unilateral contracts. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/it-is-necessary-to-enforce-unilateral-
contracts-contract-law-essay.php
- Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae,
Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: E7720. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720. (n.d.). doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f

16. - Macken.C (n.d.). Sample case summary of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB
484. Retrieved from
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/728211/carlillvcarbol.pdf
- Simplified, T. L. (2018, March 24). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | A Unilateral
Contract. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSiyuHoit9s
- Zhafri, A. F. (n.d.). An Analysis Of Contract Law; Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd.
Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/10016182/An_Analysis_Of_Contract_Law_Carlill_v_Carbolic
_Smoke_Ball_Co_Ltd