Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Case

1840 Words8 Pages
The role of this case note is to comment on the decision in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Case [1893] 1 QB 256. The case looked at if any person who acted within the necessary and required conditions of the contract is legally bounded by a unilateral offer. The significance of the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case is that it established a precedent where an offer of a contract has the ability to be unilateral rather than directed at a specific party or group of parties. Moreover it established a precedent whereby a lack of communication can amount to an acceptance if the required action of the offer occurs. Facts The ‘Carbolic Smoke Ball’ company sold the Carbolic Smoke Ball. The company made an advertisement in a few…show more content…
Moreover, the other issue refers to consideration; here Mrs Carlill expressed the inconvenience, which occurred after she used the smoke ball, this could be deemed as sufficient enough consideration. Additionally the Carbolic Smoke Ball received a benefit as people such as Mrs Carlill had used and tested the smoke ball. The ratio of the case is that if the offer was made with an intention to create legal relations, the advertiser would be liable if the claim proved to be false or inaccurate. The first judgement was made by Lord Justice Lindley, he argued that through advertisement an express promise to pay one hundred pounds was made, he concluded that by the Company putting away one thousand pounds in the bank to show sincerity should have some significance, as it provides a strong suggestion of the promise which was made. Another issue was brought up was if the advertisement was too vague, in this issue he argued that the language was vague and uncertain in some aspects,, for example the length to which this contract was occurred to which he constituted a ‘reasonable time’. Overall Lord Justice Lindley concluded that the defendants have an obligation to perform their promise. The second judgement was made by Lord Justice Bowen, here he strongly agreed with Lord Justice Lindley and also reiterate up the issue of vague or ambiguous. Here
Open Document