intro to law assignment

2. The Importance of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) 1 QB
256 in Contract Law

3. Facts of Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893
● Defendant placed newspaper advert on Nov 13,1891 stating that the product ‘’The
Carbolic Smoke Ball’’ , when used 3 times daily for 2 weeks would prevent cold and
influenza.
● 100 pounds reward was offered to anyone who caught influenza using the smoke ball.
● 1000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank showing their sincerity of matter.
● Mrs. Carlil bought it and used it as directed, and caught the flu after several weeks of
using it.
● Mrs. Carlil sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. who then rejected to give the 100 pounds to
her.

5. Unilateral Contract vs Bilateral Contract
○ Only ONE promise
> offeror makes a promise and demands a
performance, not a return promise.
○ Agreement made by PERSON/group
ALONE to the WORLD AT LARGE.
○ Acceptance is COMPLETED through
FULL PERFORMANCE.
● BOTH parties make promises.
>offeror makes a promise, offeree made a
return promise for it with sufficient
consideration.
● Agreement between AT LEAST 2
PEOPLE/GROUPS.
● Acceptance MUST BE
COMMUNICATED in order to be
EFFECTIVE. (S.4 CA1950)

6. Defendant’s arguments Court’s reasons Area of law
The advertisement was a mere
Invitation to treat rather than a
offer. It is not possible to make a
contractual offer to the entire
world.
It is possible to make an offer to
the world at large. 3 judges
developed a new precedent
(Unilateral Offer)since there
was no case with similar set of
facts.
Offer
The advert was a sales puff and
lacked intent to be an offer.
Lord Lindley: The statement
referring to the deposit of
£1000 with the Alliance Bank
demonstrated the intention.
Intention
There was no notification of
acceptance from Mrs. Carlill.
In unilateral contracts,
communication of acceptance is
not necessarily require an
intention to accept, since
performance of the conditions
is the acceptance to the offer.
Acceptance

7. Defendant’s arguments Court’s reasons Area of law
The wording of the advert was
too vague to constitute an offer
since there was no stated time
limit as to catching the flu
Whilst there may be some
ambiguity in the wording this
was capable of being resolved
by applying a reasonable time
limit or confining it to only
those who caught flu while still
using the smoke balls.
Certainty
There was no consideration
provided since the “offer” did
not specify that the user of the
balls must have purchased
them.
The purchasing or merely using
the smoke ball can constituted
good consideration because it
induced inconvenient and
detrimental to health.
Furthermore, the company
benefited from sales of smoke
ball.
Consideration

8. Conclusion
The case Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893 had established :-
● Offer of contact can be distinguished in Unilateral Offer/Bilateral Offer.
● It is possible to make an offer to the world at large.
● Acceptance of Unilateral Offer need no notification and is completed once full
performance is committed.
● Act of purchasing the item is an example of consideration.
● Elements to legitimises a contract such as Offer & Acceptance, Consideration and
Intention to Create Legal Relationship.

9. Reference
1. Leoisaac.com. (2017). Law and Legal Principles: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1893. [online]
Available at: http://www.leoisaac.com/law/case_carlill.htm [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
2. Owlcation. (2017). Contract Law Cases - Carlill vs. Smoke Ball Company. [online] Available at:
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Contract-Law-Carlill-vs-Smoke-Ball-Company [Accessed 31 Oct.
2017].
3. E-lawresources.co.uk. (2017). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Carlill-v-Carbolic-Smoke-Ball-Co.php [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
4. Lawteacher.net. (2017). Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [online] Available at:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-
essay.php [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
5. lawgovpol.com. (2017). Case study: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893). [online] Available at:
http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-company-1893/ [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
6. Rocketlawyer.com. (2017). What's the Difference Between Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts?. [online]
Available at:
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/whats-the-difference-between-bilateral-and-unilateral-contracts.
rl [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
7. US Legal, I. (2017). Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts – Contracts. [online] Contracts.uslegal.com.
Available at: https://contracts.uslegal.com/types-of-contracts/bilateral-and-unilateral-contracts/
[Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].