Thread: Study Notes: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256

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

CSB offered £100 as a reward to any person that used the ball 3 times daily for 2 weeks, and they contracted a cold or influenza. Carlill caught the ‘flu after using the ball as directed and sought the reward. This was not forthcoming however, so she sued CBS and won at trial. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, they argued that the advertisement wasn’t a contract, a) because it was too vague; and b) it was not intended to be legally binding (“It was a mere puff”). They could not have intended to be bound by this contract, as they had no intention of paying £100 when they could not be satisfied that the conditions of the smoke ball’s use had been met. They also argued that they were not notified of acceptance of the offer. The Court of Appeal held that they made a unilateral offer to the general public. Laymen understood the offer, therefore it was not ‘vague’; as to being bound, they adopted an objective interpreatation, and promised a reward to any member of the public. As to lack of notification; this is a unilateral contract case, so a party can dispense with the need to notify acceptance (either expressly or impliedly).

A general offer to the public is one which can generally be accepted by any member of the public who meets the specifications of that offer. In general advertisements are not an offer but mere '' INVITATIONS TO TREAT'' but in this circumstances the advertisement was interpreted as an ''offer'' since it was seriously made and there was '' animus contrahendi'' by the defendents. See also Bloom V American Swiss Watch Co. 1915 AD 100 It was held in this case that even though the defendants had made an offer to anyone who dispatched information leading to the arrest of thieves that had stolen certain jewellery from the defendents and recovery thereof, the plaintiff could not recover the reward advertised sincee he was unaware of it, therefor he lacked the 'animus contrahendi''

NB* A contract is concluded on the basis of ''consent'' between one or more parties. You cannot accept that which you are not aware of. Bloom V American Watch Co. supra.

Have you seen any of the tv adverts now?They only say might,may,could,they never say will,does can,because they know they could be sued.