Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  1 QB 256 is a key case within the contract law degree module for the Bachelor of Laws LLB programme at university. The case concerns offer vs invitation to treat for the formation of a contract.
In this case the defendant Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that anybody who bought their product but still contracted the flu would be able to claim a £100 reward. The company had set aside money in a bank account for this purpose. Carlill, who was the claimant, purchased the product from the company but still contracted the flu. Carlill then attempted to claim the reward money.
The defendants argued that the advert was an invitation to treat, not an offer, and so they could not be bound by the promise of reward. The defendant stated the reward was a ‘mere puff’ meaning a sales puff that does not not indicate any intention. Furthermore they argued that the advertisement was not precise and did not show intent to be bound.
Was the advertisement an offer or invitiation to treat?
The court decided in favour of the claimant Carlill. The advert amounted to a unilateral offer, which is an fofer that can be fulfilled by completing the laid out conditions. Carlill completed these conditions by accepting the offer and using the smoke ball for the advertised amount of time. Furthermore, the court explained there was sufficient intent demonstrated because the company had set aside money, intending to pay any sucessful claimant. Consideration also passed between parties in the form of money from Carlill, and the smoke balls from the defendant.
OSCOLA reference this article/case: LawLessons, ‘Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  1 QB 256’ (LawLessons, 6th January 2021) <https://lawlessons.co.uk/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-1893-1-qb-256> accessed 3rd March 2021
Need help with your law studies?
Writing and Proofreading Services available here.
For complete law courses and further revision materials please click here.