The brief
| Citation | [1893] 1 Q.B. 256 (C.A.) |
|---|---|
| Court and year | English Court of Appeal, 1892 |
| Procedural posture | Carlill sued for the reward. The trial court awarded £100. The Court of Appeal affirmed. |
| Facts | In November 1891 the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised in the Pall Mall Gazette that it would pay £100 to any person who caught influenza after using its smoke ball according to the printed directions. The ad added that £1,000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank to show its sincerity. Carlill bought a ball, used it three times daily, and caught influenza in January 1892. The company refused to pay. |
| Issue | Was the advertisement an offer, and did Carlill accept it by using the ball? |
| Rule | An offer to the public that invites acceptance by performance is a unilateral offer. The offeree accepts by doing the act, and no notice is required when the offer dispenses with it. |
| Holding | Yes. The ad was an offer to anyone who performed the conditions, and Carlill accepted by performing them. |
Reasoning
The court rejected the argument that the ad was mere puffery. The £1,000 deposit at the bank showed the company meant it.
The judges disagreed about how long the protection lasted. Lindley favored a reasonable period after use; Bowen focused on continued use. Carlill recovered under either reading because she was still using the ball when she became ill.
As for acceptance, the ad did not require anyone to tell the company beforehand. Use of the ball as directed was the acceptance. Consideration was found in the inconvenience of using the ball and in the benefit to the company from sales.
Why it is assigned
It is the classic case for unilateral contracts and for reward offers. It also shows how sincerity, such as a deposit, separates a serious offer from puffery.
Limits of the holding
The decision concerns an English reward offer. For an American exam, distinguish acceptance by performance from a promise to perform, and ask whether the offer requires notice. The judges did not hold that every advertisement is an offer or that every unilateral offer dispenses with notice.
Two changed-facts hypotheticals
Change the facts so that the ad had said only 'The Carbolic Smoke Ball will protect you from influenza.'
Show the analysis
That wording does not promise a reward for performing specified conditions, so Carlill does not establish a reward contract. Whether a product claim creates a warranty or supports another claim is a separate question; absence of a reward promise does not itself prove puffery.
Change the facts so that Carlill stopped using the ball after a few days, contrary to the printed directions, and then caught influenza.
Show the analysis
The offer covered a person who used the ball according to the directions. She had not performed the condition, so she had not accepted, and there is no contract.
Quick answers
Why was the Carbolic Smoke Ball ad not puffery?
Because the company had deposited money at a bank to show it was sincere, and the promise was specific.
Did Carlill have to notify the company?
No. The offer did not require notice, and use of the ball was the acceptance.
Different readings of duration, the same result for Carlill
Why did Lindley's and Bowen's different approaches to the duration of protection not change Carlill's recovery?
Answer and explanations
Correct answer: B.
Authority: Carlill report: the separate judgments on duration and the reward
- A. Lindley favored a reasonable period after use, while Bowen focused on continued use. Those are different readings, neither of which should be converted into an unconditional promise of perpetual protection.
- B. Her illness occurred while she continued the required use. That factual position supported recovery under both approaches, without needing to settle every possible illness arising after use ended.
- C. The bank statement supported the conclusion that the reward promise was serious. It did not remove the requirement to perform the stated conditions, including the directed use.
- D. The court enforced the reward promise and affirmed the contract recovery. The judges' discussion of duration did not convert this claim into a tort award or make the promise unenforceable on Carlill's facts.