Editing Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=England and Wales Court of Appeal
|citation=1 Q.B. 256
|date=December 8, 1892
|subject=Contracts
|facts=Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant would pay a certain amount to sick person. Plaintiff got sick after using the product and sued for the money.
|reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).

performance = acceptance.

notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.

There was consideration:

Defendant got its product used.

Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-carlill-vs-carbolic-smoke-ball-company/20259
|source_type=Summary
|case_text_source=https://lawlex.org/
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSiyuHoit9s
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=The Law Simplified
}}
}}
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |date=December 8, 1892
 |subject=Contracts
-|facts=Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=carbolic+acid carbolic acid] smoke.
+|facts=Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant would pay a certain amount to sick person. Plaintiff got sick after using the product and sued for the money.
-Defendant's 1891 advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant ("Carbolic) would pay £100 to the sick person.
-|procedural_history=Plaintiff ("Carlill") got the flu after using the smoke ball ; so, she sued for the money damages.
-The trial judge awarded Carlill £100.
-|issues=Can an advertisement offering a specified sum form a binding contract?
-|arguments=Carbolic argued that the advertisement was mere puffery.
-|holding=The company's advertisement constituted an [[Contracts/Offer|offer]]. The offer was accepted by Mrs. Carlill. Consequently, she is entitled to the £100.
 |reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).
@@ Line 19: / Line 11: @@
 notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
-There was [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]]:
+There was consideration:
 Defendant got its product used.
-Plaintiff was inconvenienced while inhaling the smoke.
+Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
-|comments=*In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/carbolic-smoke-ball-scam-health-medicine-marketing/101720358 was a scam].
 |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
 |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co