Hey learners,
In the late 19th century, when influenza was spreading rapidly across England, a company selling a product called the Carbolic Smoke Ball made a bold promise. The advertisement claimed that anyone who used the smoke ball as directed would be protected from influenza. And if they still caught the illness, the company promised to pay £100.
To make the offer sound serious, the company even stated that £1,000 had been deposited in a bank to show its sincerity.
Mrs. Carlill, trusting this public promise, bought the product, used it exactly as instructed, and yet fell ill. When she claimed the promised reward, the company refused to pay — arguing that the advertisement was merely a marketing gimmick.
What followed became one of the most influential contract law cases in legal history.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) Case Details
| Particular | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (England) |
| Year | 1893 |
| Area of Law | Contract Law |
| Core Topic | Unilateral contracts & offer to the public |
| Want to study more Case Briefs? | Read Now |
Facts of the Case
- The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that users who followed the product’s instructions and still contracted influenza would receive £100.
- The advertisement stated that £1,000 was deposited in a bank to prove seriousness.
- Mrs. Carlill purchased the product and used it as directed.
- Despite this, she contracted influenza.
- When she claimed the reward, the company refused to pay.
- Mrs. Carlill filed a legal action for breach of contract.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Was the advertisement a legally binding offer or merely an invitation to treat?
- Can an offer be made to the public at large?
- Is acceptance required to be communicated in a unilateral contract?
- Was there valid consideration?
- Was the contract void for uncertainty?
Arguments of the Parties
Company’s Arguments
- The advertisement was a mere sales puff, not a serious offer.
- No contract could exist because no acceptance was communicated.
- The terms were vague and unenforceable.
- There was no consideration from Mrs. Carlill.
Mrs. Carlill’s Arguments
- The advertisement was a clear promise backed by a deposit.
- The offer was accepted by performing the conditions.
- Using the product as directed was valid consideration.
- Communication of acceptance was not required in unilateral contracts.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mrs. Carlill.
The Court held that:
- The advertisement was a clear and definite offer, not mere puffery.
- An offer can be made to the public at large.
- In a unilateral contract, acceptance occurs through performance, not communication.
- Consideration existed because Mrs. Carlill used the product and relied on the promise.
- The contract was valid and enforceable.
The company was ordered to pay £100 to Mrs. Carlill.
Legal Principle (Ratio Decidendi)
- A public advertisement can amount to a binding offer if it shows intention to create legal relations.
- Acceptance of a unilateral offer is completed by performance of the required act.
- Communication of acceptance is not necessary in unilateral contracts.
- Consideration may consist of acting in reliance on a promise.
Why This Case Is Important?
- It laid the foundation of unilateral contracts.
- It clarified the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat.
- It established that advertisements can create legal obligations.
- It is one of the most cited cases in contract law worldwide.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. remains a cornerstone of contract law. It transformed advertising promises into legally enforceable commitments when intention and clarity are present. The case teaches that when a company makes a serious promise to the public and invites action in return, the law will hold it accountable.
Even today, this case reminds businesses that words used in advertisements can create binding legal obligations.