Carlill v/s Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
The Company Made The Product Called Smoke Ball¯.It Claimed To Be Cured To
Influenza And Many Other Disease In The Context 1889_ 1890 :Flu Pandemic Which
Is Estimated To Have Killed 1 Million People. The Smoke Ball Was A Rubber Ball
With A Tube Fixed To Its Opening. The Ball Is Filled With A Carbolic Acid(
Phenol). The Tube Is Supposed To Be Inserted In One Of Our Nostrils And The
Bottom Part Of The Rubber Ball Is To Be Passed.
The Gas Enters Into Our Respiratory Tract And Flushes Out All The Viruses. The
Company Published Advertisement In The Pall Mall Gazette And Other Newspapers On
13 November 1891 Claiming That It Would Pay Ā‚¬100 To Anyone Who Got Sick With
Influenza After Using Its Product According To The Instructions Sot Out In The
Advertisement. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Used Three Times Daily For Two Week Would
Prevent Colds And Influenza The Makers Of The Smoke Ball Of A‚¬100 Reward To
Anyone Who Got Influenza Using Their Product Guarantee This Reward By Starting
In Their Advertisement That They Had Deposited 1000ā‚¬ Reward In The Bank As A
Show Their Sincerity. The Plaintiff Lilli Carlill Bought A Smoke Ball And Used
It As Directed Several Weeks After She Began Using The Smoke Ball Plantiff Cut
Facts of the case:
- Full case name: Louisa carlill v carbolic smoke ball company
- Court: court of appeal civil division
- Judges:_ lindley LJ,Bowen LJ,AL Smith LJ
- Citation: (1892)EWCA civil 1, (1893)1 QB 256
- Prior Action: Carlill v.Carbolic smoke ball (1892)2 QB 484
- Date decided: 8th December 1892
Lindley Lj On Behalf Of The Court Of Appeals Notes That The Main Issue At Hand
Is Whether The Language In Defendants Advertisement Recording The 100 Reward Was
Meant To Be An Express Promise Or Rather A Sales For Which Had No Meaning
Defendant Appeal Was Dismissed Plaintiff Was Entitled To Recover 100.The Court
Acknowledged That In The Case Of Advertisement Language Regarding Payment Of A
Reward Is Generally A Puff Which Carries No Enforceability. Defendant Noted The
Deposit Of 1,000 In This In Their Advertisement As A Of Their Sincerity .
Because Defendant Did This The Court Found Their Offer To Reward To Be A Promise
Backed By Their Own Sincerity.
This case stands for the position that while sales puffery in advertisement is
generally not intended to create a contract with potential product buyers in
this case it did because the defendant a elevated their language to the level of
promise by replying on their own sincerity.