Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 QB 256
The defendants were the proprietors of a medical preparation called The Carbolic Smoke Ball. they issued an advertisement in which they offered to pay £100 to any person who contracted influenza after having used one of their smoke balls in a specified manner and for a specified period of time. Specifically, they stated that: £100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds or any disease caused by taking cold, 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, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. The plaintiff, on the faith of the advertisement, bought one of the balls, and used it in the manner and for the period specified, but nevertheless contracted influenza.
Carbolic Company
The Carbolic Company claimed that there was no enforceable contract between it and the user of the smoke ball on the grounds that there was no acceptance of its offer, because Mrs Carlill had never notified the Company that she accepted its offer, or provided consideration, since the Company did not receive any benefit from a purchaser's use of the product once the sale had been completed. The court rejected both arguments, ruling that the advertisement was an offer of a unilateral contract between the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and anyone who satisfies the conditions set out in the advertisement. Once Mrs Carlill had satisfied the conditions she was entitled to enforcement of the contract; the notification of performance of the conditions formed part of the acceptance. Furthermore, weight was placed on the £1000 bank deposit that claimed to 'show their sincerity in the matter' in showing that the advertisement was not just a 'mere puff'.It was therefore judged that a unilateral contract had been established and that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff £100 in the occurrence of the aforementioned events. Accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Carbolic Company
The Carbolic Company claimed that there was no enforceable contract between it and the user of the smoke ball on the grounds that there was no acceptance of its offer, because Mrs Carlill had never notified the Company that she accepted its offer, or provided consideration, since the Company did not receive any benefit from a purchaser's use of the product once the sale had been completed. The court rejected both arguments, ruling that the advertisement was an offer of a unilateral contract between the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and anyone who satisfies the conditions set out in the advertisement. Once Mrs Carlill had satisfied the conditions she was entitled to enforcement of the contract; the notification of performance of the conditions formed part of the acceptance. Furthermore, weight was placed on the £1000 bank deposit that claimed to 'show their sincerity in the matter' in showing that the advertisement was not just a 'mere puff'.It was therefore judged that a unilateral contract had been established and that the defendants were to pay the plaintiff £100 in the occurrence of the aforementioned events. Accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Appeal dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment