Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Summary C Ase

    Uploaded by

    Mumtaz Begam Abdul Kadir
    Mrs. Carlill used Carbolic Smoke Balls according to instructions but still contracted influenza. She sued to claim a £100 reward advertised by Carbolic. Carbolic argued the ad was not a valid offer. The Court of Appeal ruled the ad was an offer of a unilateral contract that Mrs. Carlill accepted through performance. For unilateral contracts, performance constitutes acceptance without notice. The ad's reference to £1000 deposited demonstrated intent to be legally bound. Mrs. Carlill was awarded £100.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Summary C Ase

    Uploaded by

    Mumtaz Begam Abdul Kadir
    1K views2 pages
    Mrs. Carlill used Carbolic Smoke Balls according to instructions but still contracted influenza. She sued to claim a £100 reward advertised by Carbolic. Carbolic argued the ad was not a valid offer. The Court of Appeal ruled the ad was an offer of a unilateral contract that Mrs. Carlill accepted through performance. For unilateral contracts, performance constitutes acceptance without notice. The ad's reference to £1000 deposited demonstrated intent to be legally bound. Mrs. Carlill was awarded £100.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Summary c Ase

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mrs. Carlill used Carbolic Smoke Balls according to instructions but still contracted influenza. She sued to claim a £100 reward advertised by Carbolic. Carbolic argued the ad was not a valid offer. The Court of Appeal ruled the ad was an offer of a unilateral contract that Mrs. Carlill accepted through performance. For unilateral contracts, performance constitutes acceptance without notice. The ad's reference to £1000 deposited demonstrated intent to be legally bound. Mrs. Carlill was awarded £100.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Summary C Ase

    Uploaded by

    Mumtaz Begam Abdul Kadir
    Mrs. Carlill used Carbolic Smoke Balls according to instructions but still contracted influenza. She sued to claim a £100 reward advertised by Carbolic. Carbolic argued the ad was not a valid offer. The Court of Appeal ruled the ad was an offer of a unilateral contract that Mrs. Carlill accepted through performance. For unilateral contracts, performance constitutes acceptance without notice. The ad's reference to £1000 deposited demonstrated intent to be legally bound. Mrs. Carlill was awarded £100.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

    (1982) 2 QB 484

    Apellants: Carlill

    Respondent: Carbolic Smoke Ball

    Court: Court of Appeal

    Facts

    A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:-


    $100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who
    contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks
    according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.

    $1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter.

    Mrs Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used them according to the directions and
    caught flu. She sought to claim the stated $100 reward.

    The defendant raised the following arguments to demonstrate the advertisement was a
    mere invitation to treat rather than an offer:

    1. The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer.


    2. It is not possible to make an offer to the world.
    3. There was no notification of acceptance.
    4. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit
    as to catching the flu.
    5. There was no consideration provided since the 'offer' did not specify that the user of the
    balls must have purchased them.

    Issues:

    1) Was there a binding contract between the parties?


    2) A contract requires notification of acceptance
    - Did Mrs Carlill notify Carbolic of the acceptance of the offer?
    - Did Mrs Carlill provide consideration in exchange for the 100 pounds reward?

    Judgement

    The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert
    constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the
    conditions stated in the offer. The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the
    defendants for the following reasons:

    1. The statement referring to the deposit of $1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it
    was no
    a mere sales puff.
    2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world.
    3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an
    intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance.
    4. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of being resolved
    by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to only those who caught flu whilst
    still using the balls.
    5. The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been
    purchased by them directly.

    The appeal was dismissed unanimously by all the three judges and Mrs. Carlill finally
    received compensation of $100. She lived to the ripe old age of 96. She died on March
    10, 1942. According to her doctor principally of old age. There was one cause noted
    though: Influenza.
    Mr. Roe, owner of Carbolic Smoke ball Co. , continued with his aggressive marketing.
    This time he increased the reward to $200 following the loss of the case.

    Ratio:
    In unilateral contracts, communication of acceptance is not expected or necessary.
    If there is an offer to the world at large, and that offer does not expressly or impliedly require
    notification of performance, performance of the specified condition in the offer will constitute
    acceptance of the offer and consideration for the promise. (The three judges in this case agreed on
    this issue).
    Statements made in an advertisement may be a mere puff and not intended to be legally
    binding. If the advertisement shows a clear promissory intention to be legally bound, it may
    constitute a unilateral offer.

    Our Opionion:

    You might also like