Carlill v/s Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Facts:

Carlil vs carbolic smoke ball case took place in the year 1983 in the court of appeal in UK which is considered as one of the landmark judgements in English law of contracts. lindley LJ, A L Smith and Brown LJ were the judges of this case.

The Defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of London , placed an advertisement in several newspapers on November 13, 1891, stating that its product, “The Carbolic Smoke Ball”, when used three times daily, for two weeks, would prevent colds and influenza.

The makers of the smoke ball additionally offered a 100£ reward to anyone who caught influenza using their product, guaranteeing this reward by stating in their advertisement that they had deposited 1000£ in the bank as a show of their sincerity.

The Plaintiff, Lilli Carlill , bought a smoke ball and used it as directed. Several weeks after she began using the smoke ball, Plaintiff caught the flu.

Issue-

Whether the language in Defendant’s advertisement, regarding the 100£ reward was meant to be an express promise or, rather, a sales puff, which had no meaning whatsoever?

Rule-

According to the contract act, 1872 section When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promiseit is questionable if the promise has been made by the company has been made and the validity of the advertisement.

Court’s reasoning -

The Court acknowledged that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding payment of a reward is generally a puff, which carries no enforceability. In this case, however, Defendant noted the deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as a show of their sincerity. Because Defendant did this, the Court found their offer to reward to be a promise, backed by their own sincerity. 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 balls by relying on the advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic.

Analysis:

The Defendant could argue lack of consideration, Plaintiff, in buying the Carbolic Smoke Ball and using it as directed, provided adequate consideration through the inconvenience she experienced by using the product.