Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.)
1. Answer T for true and F for False for the following statements:
· Courts usually regard advertisements as invitations to treat, not offers
· The appellant was Ms. Carlill
· The advertisement in the newspaper stated that the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company would pay 100 pounds to anyone who used the medicine as directed and still got the flu and that they had deposited 1000 pounds in a bank to prove they were serious
· The Issue in the case was whether or not the promise contained in the advertisement was an offer or merely an invitation to treat.
· The defence tried to argue that there was no consideration
· Bowen L.J said that the statements that 100 pounds would be awarded to a customer who used the Smoke Ball correctly and then got sick was just puff
· If the advertisement is an offer, the contract is formed by performance
· In contract law there only needs to be consideration – the law does not require that the consideration be equal to the value of what is being promised
· The Ratio from Lindley M.R was that advertisements of unilateral contracts are treated as offers.
· The judges found for the Appellant in this case
2. Answer the following:
· Examine the facts of the Case. What details of the Advertisement do you think the court decided were evidence of the sincerity of the Company’s intention ( ie the statements were not mere puff)
· Explain what Bowen L.J. meant when he said, “If this is an offer to be bound, then it is a contract the moment the person fulfils the
condition.”
· The following is the ratio of the case (the reason for the court’s decision): Advertisements of unilateral contracts are treated as offers. Where the language is clear that an ordinary person would construe an intention to offer, anyone who relies on this offer and performs the required conditions thereby accepts the offer and forms an enforceable contract.
Explain this in your own words ( ie paraphrase)
· So this case set the precedent that Advertisements can sometimes be offers rather than invitations to treat. Explain what the courts look at in advertisements to make the decision as to whether or not an advertisement is an invitation to treat or an offer.