November 7, 2024
DU LLBLaw of ContractSemester 1

Carllil vs carbolic smoke balls Case Analysis

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Standing offer − with public until the offer is not withdrawn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.

Related posts

M/s Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Board for the Preventionand Control of Water Pollution, AIR 1986 Del. 152H.C. GOEL, J

vikash Kumar

M/S Umesh Goel v Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.(2016) 11 SCC 313

Tabassum Jahan

Ram Narain v. State of U.P. (1973) 2 SCC 86 : AIR 1973 SC 2200

Tabassum Jahan

Leave a Comment