| Citation – Carlil v. carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ( 1891−4) ALL ER Rep. 127 Keywords – PPAC, Offer, General Offer, Implied acceptance |
| Facts The Plaintiff, believing Defendant’s advertisement that its product would prevent influenza, bought a Carbolic Smoke Ball and used it as directed from November 20, 1891 until January 17, 1892, when she caught the flu. Plaintiff brought suit to recover the 100£, which the Court found her entitled to recover. |
| Law Point |
| Formation of agreement – Intention Section 2(d) of ICA 1872 – consideration Issue This case considers whether an advertising gimmick (i.e. the promise to pay 100£ to anyone contracting influenza while using the Carbolic Smoke Ball) can be considered an express contractual promise to pay. Defendant’s Appeal was dismissed, Plaintiff was entitled to recover 100£. The Court acknowledges that in the case of vague advertisements, language regarding payment of a reward is generally a puff, which carries no enforceability. In this case, however, Defendant noted the deposit of £1000 in their advertisement, as a show of their sincerity. Because Defendant did this, the Court found their offer to reward to be a promise, backed by their own sincerity |
| PRINCIPLES |
| Wagering contract Intention was , it should be acted upon , and it was acted upon. There was ample consideration for the promise , and that, therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the rewards. Standing offer − with public until the offer is not withdrawn |
Case Authority
This case stands for the proposition that while sales puffery in advertisements is generally not intended to create a contract with potential product buyers, in this case it did because the Defendant elevated their language to the level of a promise, by relying on their own sincerity.
