Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
|Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.|
|Court||In the Court of Appeal|
|Citation||1 Q.B. 256 (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.
- 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.