Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (Lost Student moved page Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. to Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Conform to English case naming standards (no period for "v"))
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=In the Court of Appeal
|court=England and Wales Court of Appeal
|citation=1 Q.B. 256 (1893)
|citation=1 Q.B. 256
|date=1893
|date=December 8, 1892
|subject=Contracts
|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.
 
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).


performance = acceptance.


'''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.
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.


'''Issue''': Was there a contract?
There was [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]]:


'''Holding''': Yes, there was a contract and Defendant was liable for it.
Defendant got its product used.


'''Reasons''':
Plaintiff was inconvenienced while inhaling the smoke.
* The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).
|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].
** performance = acceptance.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
** notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co
* There was consideration:
|source_type=Video summary
** Defendant got its product used.
|case_text_source=Quimbee
** Plaintiff was inconvenienced.
}}{{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
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 13:13, 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?

Arguments

Carbolic argued that the advertisement was mere puffery.

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 while inhaling the smoke.

Comments

  • In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza was a scam.

Resources

Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co.&oldid=46678"