Case Brief: Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
📄 Case Brief: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256
Court:
Queen’s Bench (England)
Judges:
Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ, and A. L. Smith LJ
Parties Involved:
Plaintiff/Appellant: Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill
Defendant/Respondent: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Facts of the Case:
The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company manufactured a product called the “Smoke Ball,” which was claimed to prevent influenza and other diseases.
The company issued an advertisement in various newspapers that stated:
"£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, as per instructions."
To show sincerity, the ad stated that £1,000 had been deposited in the bank.
Mrs. Carlill bought the smoke ball, used it as directed, but still caught influenza.
She claimed the £100 reward, but the company refused to pay.
The company argued that:
There was no binding contract.
The advertisement was mere puff (not a serious offer).
There was no acceptance or notification of acceptance by Mrs. Carlill.
There was no consideration from Mrs. Carlill.
Issues Before the Court:
Was the advertisement a valid offer or just a sales puff?
Did Mrs. Carlill accept the offer, and was communication of acceptance necessary?
Was there valid consideration provided by Mrs. Carlill?
Was there an intention to create legal relations?
Judgment:
The Court ruled in favour of Mrs. Carlill.
Legal Reasoning:
✅ 1. The advertisement was a valid unilateral offer:
The court held that the advertisement was not just a puff but a serious offer, especially because the company claimed to have deposited £1,000 in the bank, showing intent.
Unilateral Contract: An offer made to the world, accepted by performance, not by communication.
✅ 2. Acceptance through conduct:
Mrs. Carlill accepted the offer by performing the act (using the smoke ball as per instructions).
No need to notify the company of acceptance before performance in unilateral contracts.
✅ 3. Consideration was present:
Mrs. Carlill’s inconvenience and use of the product, and possibly the purchase, amounted to consideration.
She complied with the conditions set out in the advertisement.
✅ 4. Intention to create legal relations:
The court rejected the claim that the ad was a mere puff.
The mention of £1,000 deposit in a bank demonstrated seriousness and intention to be legally bound.
Key Legal Principles Established:
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Unilateral Contract | A promise made to the public that is accepted by performance (no need to communicate acceptance). |
| Offer vs Invitation to Treat | An advertisement can be an offer if it is clear, definite, and shows an intention to be bound. |
| Acceptance by Conduct | In unilateral contracts, doing the specified act amounts to acceptance. |
| Consideration | Even a small inconvenience or detriment (like using the product) is sufficient. |
| Intention to Create Legal Relations | Objective indicators (like depositing money in a bank) matter more than subjective beliefs. |
Importance of the Case:
This case is foundational in contract law, especially in distinguishing unilateral and bilateral contracts.
It clarified that advertisements can constitute offers in certain cases.
The case is often the first case law taught in contract law classes worldwide due to its clarity and broad legal principles.
Related Case References:
While Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. stands strong on its own, some related principles are discussed in:
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913) (India) – Discussed acceptance and knowledge of offer.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (1953) – Distinguished between offer and invitation to treat.
Harbhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal (1925) – Indian case reinforcing unilateral contracts accepted by performance.
✅ Conclusion:
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. established that a unilateral offer to the public can become a binding contract when a person performs the stipulated act, even without formal acceptance. It stands as a cornerstone of modern contract law and continues to influence decisions across jurisdictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments