Carlil vs Carbolic Smoke Ball
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | |
|[pic] |
|Court |Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
|Full case name |Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company |
|Date decided |7 December 1893 |
|Citation(s) |[1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256 |
|Judge(s) sitting |Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ and AL Smith LJ |
|Case history |
|Prior action(s) |Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 |
| |(QBD) |
|Subsequent action(s) |none |
|Case opinions |
|Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ and AL Smith LJ |
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies.
The case concerned a flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which it construed as creating a contract. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer and acceptance,
|[pic] |
|Court |Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
|Full case name |Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company |
|Date decided |7 December 1893 |
|Citation(s) |[1892] EWCA Civ 1, [1893] 1 QB 256 |
|Judge(s) sitting |Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ and AL Smith LJ |
|Case history |
|Prior action(s) |Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 |
| |(QBD) |
|Subsequent action(s) |none |
|Case opinions |
|Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ and AL Smith LJ |
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies.
The case concerned a flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which it construed as creating a contract. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer and acceptance,