Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Plaintiff was inconvenienced. | 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 | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co | ||
Revision as of 13:08, August 29, 2023
| Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | |
| Court | England and Wales Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1 Q.B. 256 |
| Date decided | December 8, 1892 |
Facts
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced carbolic acid smoke.
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?
Holding
The company's advertisement constituted an 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).
performance = acceptance.
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
There was consideration:
Defendant got its product used.
Plaintiff was inconvenienced.Comments
- In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza was a scam.
