Overview of the case

Carbolic smoke ball co.

manufactured and sold The
Carbolic Smoke Ball. The
company advertised in various
newspapers that

And they
also
promised
that

The Advertisement
13 November 1891 Pall Mall Gazette

Mrs. Carlill saw

the
advertisement in
newspaper

Mrs. Carlill used that

product 3 times per day
as directed in the
advertisement

Carbolic smoke ball co.

refused to pay her 100

Mrs. Carlill sue against

Carbolic smoke ball co.
for breach of contract

Issues of the case

Issues
Does one who makes an unilateral offer for the sale
of goods by means of an advertisement impliedly
waive notification of acceptance, if his purpose is to
sell as much product as possible?
Whether the ad was intended to be a promise or
whether it was merely puffing.
Is it possible to make an offer to the world?
Was there any consideration?

Rules to the issues

Yes. One who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of
goods by means of an advertisement impliedly
waives notification of acceptance if his purpose is to
sell as much product as possible.
The court addressed the issue of whether the ad
was intended to be a promise or whether it was
merely puffing. The court pointed to Carbolic
Smoke Balls claim in the advertisement that it had
deposited 1000 pounds with Alliance Bank, which
the court decided was intended to demonstrate the
companys sincerity in paying the reward.
It
is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
There was consideration as smoke ball was
exchanged for money.

Judgment of the case

Judgement
A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant
stated:100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company to any person who contracts the
influenza 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, showing
our sincerity in the matter."
Mrs. Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used
them according to the directions and caught flu.

Arguments by
defender

Arguments
The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be
an offer.
It is not possible to make an offer to the world.
There was no notification of acceptance
The wording was too vague to constitute an offer
since there was no stated time limit as to catching
the flu.
There was no consideration provided since the
'offer' did not specify that the user of the balls
must have purchased them.

Final Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs. Carlill was
entitled to the reward as the advert constituted an
offer of a unilateral contract which she had
accepted by performing the conditions stated in the
offer. The court rejected all the arguments put
forward by the defendants for the following reasons:
1. The statement referring to the deposit of 1,000
demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a
mere sales puff.
2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement
that the offeree communicates an intention to

Final Judgment
4. 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 whilst still using the balls.
5. The defendants would have value in people using
the balls even if they had not been purchased by
them directly.

Thank
You!