Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 7 December 1892

Extraits

[...] Even if Mrs Carlill did not win the 100 reward, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company did not win anything. The use of the Smoke Ball could not be considered as an insurance policy, because it was not designed as an insurance policy. With the arguments of both parties, Judge Hawkins said that there was a contract, it was not a gambling, it did not require a stamp and it was not affected by any insurance contract statues. According to the judge: advertisement was inserted in the hope that it would be read by all newspaper's readers”. [...]

[...] Companies doing publicity in order to increase their sales must understand if they promise to purchasers anything, they must not be surprises if the judges ask them to hold their promises, even if they will have to pay a substantial amount of money. In reply to that decision, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company decided to appeal. The new judgment was given on the 7th December 1892. The company argued a second time saying that this case was not like the others reward cases, because catching the influenza was not something you could control and that the terms used in the advertisement were too vague to make any contract. [...]

[...] Carlill's barristers said: advertisement was clearly advertisements that look like it and should be act Furthermore, there was no need for a direct communication because conduct in accordance with terms of an agreement can constitute acceptance. The court of appeal rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract, and that they had to pay 100 to Mrs. Carlill. The judges gave four reasons for this decision: The offer was a unilateral offer to the world. When an offer is made to the entire world, there is no need of direct communication of acceptance but anly behavior in accordance with the specific terms of advert. [...]

[...] Carbolic Smoke Ball Company December 1892 The case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company took place in London in 1892. It is one of the most important cases regarding the common law of contract. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is a medical company which sells pills against several types of allergies and diseases. The company created a product supposed to heal people from influenza. This product was called the Smoke Ball and consisted in ball filled with carbolic acid that people had to insert in the nose to release the vapors supposed to heal them. [...]

[...] There is a reasonable time delay which will be evaluated by any courts regarding all plaintiffs in a similar case against the Smoke Ball Company. To avoid the compulsory payment to a large number of clients, the Smoke Ball Company has to advertise in the same newspapers saying this offer is no longer available. The plaintiff won the case and received the 100 promised. This case introduced the basis of common law of contract in Great Britain. The principles exposed in this case are also the basis of current advertising law. [...]