Case Study: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a case decided by the Court of Appeal in England in 1892. The case involved a company called the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, which had advertised a product called the "Carbolic Smoke Ball" as a cure for influenza and a number of other illnesses. The company claimed that it had deposited £1000 with the Alliance Bank as proof of its confidence in the product, and offered to pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using the smoke ball according to the instructions provided.
The Court of Appeal rejected the company's argument and held that the advertisement constituted a legally binding offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed the conditions specified in the advertisement. The court also held that Mrs. Carlill's use of the smoke ball according to the instructions constituted acceptance of the offer and entitled her to the £100 reward.
The legal principle emerging from the case is that an advertisement can constitute a legally binding offer if it is clear, definite, and capable of being accepted by performance of the conditions specified. This principle is known as the "Carlill rule."
Similar cases include:
- Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552: This case involved an advertisement offering to sell a property for a certain price, and held that the advertisement constituted a binding offer that could be accepted by making the specified payment.
- Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394: This case involved an advertisement offering to sell a flick knife, and held that the advertisement did not constitute a binding offer because the sale of flick knives was illegal.
