Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

[1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.)

Procedural History:

Appeal from decision of Hawkins J. wherein he held that the plaintiff, Ms. Carlill was
entitled to recover 100.

Parties to the Action:

Appellant: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [defendants at trial level]
Respondent: Ms. Carlill [plaintiff at trial level]

Facts:

The Defendants manufactured and sold the Carbolic Smoke Ball and 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. The
plaintiff used the ball as directed but contracted influenza. She sued to recover the money
promised in the advertisement.

Issue:

Does an advertisement to the general public promising to pay money to anyone who does
something create a binding contract between the parties?

Arguments:

The Defendant argued that:

Contract was too vague to be enforced;
o No way to check the conditions were met;
o You cannot contract with everybody (ie the whole world);
o Timeframe not specified;
Acceptance had not been communicated to the offeror;
There was no consideration: nudum pactum;


Analysis:

Bowen L.J.: How would an ordinary person construe this document? Was it intended that
the 100 should, if the conditions were fulfilled, be paid? The advertisement says that
1000 is lodged at the bank for this purpose. Therefore the statement was not a mere puff,
I think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted
upon.
The extravagance of a promise is no reason in law to not enforce a contract.

If this is an offer to be bound, then it is a contract the moment the person fulfils the
condition.

Whether notification is required in advertising cases is to be determined by the language
of the ad and the nature of the transaction.

The law does not require us to measure the adequacy of consideration and inconvenience
sustained by one party at the request of another is enough to create consideration.

Lindley M.R.: the person who makes the offer shows by his language and from the
nature of the transaction that he does not expect and does not require notice of the
acceptance apart from notice of the performance.

Ratio:

Advertisements of unilateral contracts are treated as offers. Where the language is clear
that an ordinary person would construe an intention to offer, anyone who relies on this
offer and performs the required conditions thereby accepts the offer and forms an
enforceable contract.

Held:

Yes the contract was binding and the defendant was ordered to pay the 100 to the
plaintiff. Appeal Dismissed.

Obiter Dicta / Notes:

Bowen L.J. considered how the ordinary person would construe the intention of the offer
rather than the subjective intention of the offeror or the offeree.

Word Count: 463

[Note I left out the legal rules section seemed redundant with the analysis.
I also left out the cause of action section as it was redundant with the arguments and
the facts.]