Carlil v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Citation:  [1892] EWCA Civ 1 

Judges: Justice Lindley LJ, Justice AL Smith LJ and Justice Bowen LJ

Facts: 

The Defendant company made a product called “Smoke Ball”. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. Thereafter the Defendant Company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers claiming that it would pay £100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.

The Plaintiff  believing in the accuracy of the statement made in the advertisement with respect to efficacy of the smoke ball in cases of influenza, purchased one packet and used it thrice every day from mid-November, 1891 until 17th Jan, 1892, at which latter date she had an attack of influenza.

Thereupon, her husband wrote a letter for her to the defendants, stating what had happened, and asking for £100 as promised in the advertisement. They refused and this action was brought in court before Hawkins J. and a special jury. Arguments were heard on both the sides and finally the verdict was given.

Issues: 

1. Whether the language of the advertisement regarding the 100£ reward was meant to be an express promise or, rather, a sales puff, which had no meaning whatsoever? 
2. Whether there was any binding effect of the contract between the parties? 
3. Whether the contract in question required a formal notification of acceptance? 
4. Whether Mrs Carlill was required to communicate her acceptance of the offer to the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company? 
5. Whether Mrs Carlill provided any consideration in exchange for the reward of 100 pounds offered by the company?

Judgement: 

The Defendant contended that the offer was not made for anyone specifically but was an advertisement offer. The Court acknowledged that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding payment of a reward is generally a puff, which carries no enforceability.  In this case, however, Defendant noted the deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as a show of their sincerity.  Because Defendant did this, the Court found their offer to reward to be a promise, backed by their own sincerity.

Analysis

This judgement is significant to understand the concept of unilateral agreements as it points out the problems relating to unilateral agreements. Further, this case stands for the proposition that while sales puffery in advertisements is generally not intended to create a contract with potential product buyers, in this case it did because the Defendant elevated their language to the level of a promise, by relying on their own sincerity.