This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.'', EWCA Civ 1 (1983). '''Facts''': Defendant's advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, ...") |
No edit summary |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=England and Wales Court of Appeal | |||
|citation=1 Q.B. 256 | |||
|date=December 8, 1892 | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
|facts=Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced [https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=carbolic+acid carbolic acid] smoke. | |||
Defendant's 1891 advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant ("Carbolic) would pay £100 to the sick person. | |||
|procedural_history=Plaintiff ("Carlill") got the flu after using the smoke ball ; so, she sued for the money damages. | |||
' | The trial judge awarded Carlill £100. | ||
|issues=Can an advertisement offering a specified sum form a binding contract? | |||
|arguments=Carbolic argued that the advertisement was mere puffery. | |||
|holding=The company's advertisement constituted an [[Contracts/Offer|offer]]. The offer was accepted by Mrs. Carlill. Consequently, she is entitled to the £100. | |||
|reasons=The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract). | |||
performance = acceptance. | |||
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance. | |||
[[ | There was [[Contracts/Consideration|consideration]]: | ||
Defendant got its product used. | |||
Plaintiff was inconvenienced while inhaling the smoke. | |||
|comments=*In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/carbolic-smoke-ball-scam-health-medicine-marketing/101720358 was a scam]. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-carlill-vs-carbolic-smoke-ball-company/20259 | |||
|source_type=Summary | |||
|case_text_source=https://lawlex.org/ | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSiyuHoit9s | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=The Law Simplified | |||
}} | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 13:13, August 29, 2023
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. | |
Court | England and Wales Court of Appeal |
---|---|
Citation | 1 Q.B. 256 |
Date decided | December 8, 1892 |
Facts
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ("Carbolic") released a product that, when ignited, produced carbolic acid smoke.
Defendant's 1891 advertisement said that if a user of its medicinal product got sick after properly using it, Defendant ("Carbolic) would pay £100 to the sick person.Procedural History
Plaintiff ("Carlill") got the flu after using the smoke ball ; so, she sued for the money damages.
The trial judge awarded Carlill £100.Issues
Can an advertisement offering a specified sum form a binding contract?
Arguments
Carbolic argued that the advertisement was mere puffery.
Holding
The company's advertisement constituted an offer. The offer was accepted by Mrs. Carlill. Consequently, she is entitled to the £100.
Reasons
The offer was similar to a reward (unilateral contract).
performance = acceptance.
notice was properly given to Defendant of performance.
There was consideration:
Defendant got its product used.
Plaintiff was inconvenienced while inhaling the smoke.Comments
- In the late 1800s, using the smoke ball of carbolic acid to protect oneself against influenza was a scam.