Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke PDF

Preview

Summary

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.Facts:-® Carlill V. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' designed to prevent users contracting influenza or similar illnesses. The company's advertised (in part) that: “100 pounds reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any...

Description

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Facts:® Carlill V. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co produced the 'Carbolic Smoke Ball' designed to prevent users contracting influenza or similar illnesses. The company's advertised (in part) that: “100 pounds reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter”. ® After seeing this advertisement Mrs Carlill bought one of the balls and used it as directed. She subsequently caught the flu and claimed the reward. The company refused to pay. Mrs Carlill sued for the reward.

Legal Issue:1. Can one make a contract with the whole world? 2. How does one interpret vague terms? 3. Was the ad a "mere puff"? 4. Does performance of the conditions advertised in the paper constitute acceptance of an offer? 5. Was there any consideration?

Judgment:At the trial stage the defendants denied that there was any contract between them and the plaintiff; and alternatively, that, if there were any, it was void as a wagering agreement. The trial court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants appealed. The appellate court observed as following on the issues raised and gave the judgment in favour of Mrs. Carlill: 1. Can one make a contract with the whole world? -It is quite possible to make an offer to the world. 2. How does one interpret vague terms? -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.

3. Was the ad a "mere puff"? -The determination of a serious offer will be determined from the words and actions. The statement referring to the deposit of £1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a mere sales puff. 4. Does performance of the conditions advertised in the paper constitute acceptance of an offer? -There was a unilateral contract comprising the offer (by advertisement) of the Carbolic Smoke Ball company) and the acceptance (by performance of conditions stated in the offer) by Mrs Carlill. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance. Although as a general rule communication of acceptance is required, the offeror may dispense with the need for notification and had done so in this case. Here, it was implicit that the offeree (Mrs Carlill) did not need to communicate an intention to accept; rather acceptance occurred through performance of the requested acts (using the smoke ball) 5. Was there any consideration? -There was consideration; the inconvenience suffered by Mrs Carlill in using the smokeball as directed was sufficient consideration. In addition, the Carbolic Smoke Ball received a benefit in having people use the smoke ball....