Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256

Facts

  • The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company produced and sold a product claimed to prevent influenza and related ailments.
  • The company advertised that £100 would be paid to any person who contracted influenza or a respiratory disease after using the smoke ball three times daily for two weeks as instructed.
  • The advertisement specified a £1000 deposit with the Alliance Bank to show sincerity.
  • Mrs. Carlill used the smoke ball as directed and subsequently contracted influenza.
  • Mrs. Carlill claimed the £100 reward from the company, which was refused, resulting in legal proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the advertisement constituted a binding offer or was merely a sales puff or invitation to treat.
  2. Whether an offer could be made to the world at large and be legally enforceable.
  3. Whether Mrs. Carlill needed to communicate her acceptance, or if performance sufficed.
  4. Whether sufficient consideration was provided by Mrs. Carlill for the company’s promise.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the advertisement was a binding offer for a unilateral contract, not a mere puff or invitation to treat.
  • The court found that the £1000 deposit demonstrated clear intent to be legally bound.
  • It was established that such an offer could be made to the public at large and was accepted by anyone who performed the specified conditions.
  • Acceptance through performance, without explicit communication, was valid in unilateral contracts.
  • Consideration was found both in the purchase of the smoke ball and in the inconvenience suffered by Mrs. Carlill in using it as directed.
  • Judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Carlill, entitling her to the £100 reward.

Legal Principles

  • An advertisement may constitute a valid unilateral offer if it demonstrates clear intention to be legally bound.
  • In unilateral contracts, acceptance is made through complete performance of conditions, not necessarily by explicit communication.
  • Consideration can include the inconvenience, effort, or detriment incurred by the performing party, not just direct benefit to the promisor.
  • The distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat requires objective assessment of intent and clarity of terms.
  • Offers made to the world at large may result in enforceable contracts with those who fulfill the specified terms.

Conclusion

The decision in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 established that clear, specific advertisements can be binding unilateral offers, accepted by performance and supported by consideration, thereby shaping the modern doctrine of contract formation and protection against deceptive advertising.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal