Carlill Vs.

Carbolic Smoke Ball

Co.(1882)
- A Case Presentation
 Submitted By:
◦ Chirag Adlakha
◦ Laxmi Keswani
◦ Sandeep Ranjan
Pattnaik
◦ Sarada Prasan Behera
◦ Shyam Modi
◦ Sunny Saurabh
Prashar


◦

 v Contract
 A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more
parties to do, or refrain from doing, an act which is enforceable
in a court of law.


v Offer
 When a person signifies to another his willingness to do or to
abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the assent
of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a
offer.


v Acceptance
 Acceptanceusually refers to cases where a person
experiences a situation or condition without attempting to
change it.


v Consideration
 Consideration is the legal concept of value in connection
with contracts. It is anything of value in the common sense,
promised to another when making a contract. It can take the
form of money, physical objects, services, promised actions, or
even abstinence from a future action. 

Advertisement By Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co. (1882)
 “£100 reward will be
paid by the Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company
to any person who
contracts the
increasing epidemic
influenza colds, or any
disease caused by
taking cold, after
having used the ball
three times daily for
two weeks, according
to the printed
directions supplied
with each ball.


 £1000 is deposited
with the Alliance Bank,
Regent Street.”
Outline of the Case
 Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company(1892), is
one of the leading judgment from England and
Wales Court of Appeal in the law of contract.

 Parties to the Action:
◦ Appellant : Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[Defendants]
◦ Respondent:Mrs. Carlill [Plaintiff]

 Hearing Jury:
 Lord Justice A L Smith
 Lord Justice Lindley
 Lord Justice Bowen

Fact about the Case
 Carbolic Smoke Company, in 1892,advertised in
the newspaper that they would pay £100 to
anyone who uses the medicine as directed and
nevertheless contracts a cold, influenza, or
other cold disease.
 The advertisement also claimed that £1000 was
being deposited into the bank to demonstrate
their sincerity.
 Mrs. Carlill used the ball as directed but
contracted influenza.
 She sued to recover the money promised in the
advertisement.


Arguments by the
Defendant
 The Defendant argued that:
◦ Contract was too vague to be enforced
 No way to check the conditions were met
You cannot contract with everybody( i.e. the
whole world)
Timeframe not specified
◦ Acceptance had not been communicated to the
offeror
◦ There was no consideration

 VERDICT BY THE COURT OF

APPEAL
The Court of Appeal rejected the company's arguments and held that there
was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs Carlill. Among the reasons
given by the three judges were


◦ that the advertisement was a unilateral offer to all the world



◦ that satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted

acceptance of the offer


◦ that purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted

good consideration, because it was a distinct detriment
incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore,
more people buying smoke ball by relying on the advert
was a clear benefit to Carbolic


◦ that the company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the

Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally
bound
◦
◦
A silent movie on the case
Reference
 Pg. 32, The Modern Law Of Contract by Richard
Stone

 Pg.4.6, Business Law, The Institute of Cost and
Works Accountant of India

 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.htm
 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.html(dt.09
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABZeKvAIyEc&fe


Thank You