Contract Law Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball

Facts Of The Case

The defendant in the case is Carbolic Smoke Ball company which manufactures the remedy of flu. The defendant placed an advertisement in many newspaper like pall Mall gazette which states that the product 'Carbolic Smoke Ball', if used three times a day for a period of two weeks will prevent the influenza and cold. The manufacturers of the Carbolic Smoke Ball additionally offered the reward of 100 Euros to anyone who catches influenza and uses their product. The company deposited 1000 Euros in bank in order to show sincerity for the reward guarantee. The plaintiff is Lilli Carlill who bought smoke ball and used the remedy as directed by the company. The plaintiff's husband received the letter and she ignore tow of the letters of her husband. She replied to third letter that if she could use the flu remedy properly and the company has full confidence on the efficacy of the Carbolic smoke ball but the company asked to user to come to their office to use the ball each day and check it by the Secretary in order to prevent the fraudulent claims. After many weeks, she started using carbolic smoke ball and the plaintiff caught flu.

Visit Law Assignment Writing Service

Plaintiff argued that the advertisement and the reliance of plaintiff on the company is a contract and the company must be liable to pay the reward. The company have even deposited 1000 Euros in the bank to show their sincerity to form the valid contract. This shows their intention to create an agreement from one side. The attributes of the contract form the unilateral contract.

Take coursework writing service

On the other hand the defendant argued that it was not a serious contract as the offer did have a binding impact to form a valid contract as the words used in advertisement is too vague and does not amount to promise. Secondly there was no intention to communicate the acceptance as Carlill failed to send any acceptance of the offer either impliedly or expressly. An the advertisement was just a marketing strategy and the organisation have no intention to form a valid contract.

Issues Raised

Whether the language used in the advertisement meant to be express promise or the sales puff have no meaning to it?

Decision of lower court

The court held that the company is bound by the advertisement as it was construed as the offer to which the plaintiff accepted and a contract was formed. Hence the company is liable to pay the plaintiff reward for which it has promised to pay in the advertisement.

Decision of Court of Appeal

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal to which the court held that the plaintiff is entitled for the reward of 100 Euros. The court acknowledges that in case of vague advertisement, the language regarding the payment of the reward is normally puff which carries no enforceability. In the present case, the defendant noted that it has deposited 1000 Euros in the advertisement to show the sincerity. As defendant did this, the court found that the offer to reward is a promise which is backed by the sincerity.

Impact of the case on law of contract

The decision of the court impacted the concept of unilateral contract as now the companies have become more aware when advertising. The advertisement is an offer to the large people and it is implied that the offer may be accepted. So the offeror now becomes obliged to perform its part of the agreement. Thus the advertisements are unilateral contracts and it must have a binding effect on the party making it.