Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Court In the Court of Appeal
Citation 1 Q.B. 256 (1893)
Date decided 1893


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.