Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., EWCA Civ 1 (1983).
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.
Issue: Was there a contract?
Holding: Yes, there was a contract and Defendant was liable for it.
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.
