Derecho

Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke
Ball
Company
Legal Citation:
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Company [1893] 1 QB 256; Court
of Appeal, 1892 Dec. 6,7,
LINDLEY, BOWEN and A. L.
SMITH, L.JJ.

Facts
Contract - Offer by Advertisement - Performance of Condition in Advertisement Notification of Acceptance of Offer - Wager - Insurance - 8 9 Vict. c. 109 - 14 Geo. 3, c. 48,
s. 2.
The defendants, theproprietors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball,"
issued an advertisement in which they offered to pay 100 to any person who contracted the
influenza after having used one of their smoke balls in a specified manner and for a specified
period. The plaintiff on the faith of the advertisement bought one of the balls, and used it in
the manner and for the period specified,but nevertheless contracted the influenza:-

Held
Held, affirming the decision of Hawkins, J., that the above facts established a contract by the
defendants to pay the plaintiff 100 in the event which had happened; that such contract was
neither a contract by way of wagering within 8 9 Vict. c. 109, nor a policy within 14 Geo. 3,
c. 48, s. 2; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.The Full decision of the case
APPEAL from a decision of Hawkins, J.(2)
The defendants, who were the proprietors and vendors of a medical preparation called "The
Carbolic Smoke Ball," inserted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 13, 1891, and in other
newspapers, the following advertisement: "100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasingepidemic influenza, colds, or any
disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks
according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the
Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.
"During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as
preventives against thisdisease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by
those using the carbolic smoke ball.
"One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in
the world at the price, 10, post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5 Address, Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London."
The plaintiff, a lady, on the faith ofthis advertisement, bought one of the balls at a chemist’s,
and used it as directed, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892,
when she was attacked by influenza. Hawkins, J., held that she was entitled to recover the 100
The defendants appealed.
Finlay, Q.C., and T. Terrell, for the defendants. The facts shew that there was no binding
contract between the parties. Thecase is not like Williams v. Carwardine (4 B. Ad. 621),
where the money was to become payable on the performance of certain acts by the plaintiff;
here the plaintiff could not by any act of her own establish a claim, for, to establish her right

to the money, it was necessary that she should be attacked by influenz a - an event over which
she had no control. The words express an intention, butdo not amount to a promise: Week v.
Tibold. 1 Roll. Abr. 6 (M.). The present case is similar to Harris v. Nickerson. Law Rep. 8 Q.
B. 286. The advertisement is too vague to be the basis of a contract; there is no limit as to
time, and no means of checking the use of the ball. Anyone who had influenza might come
forward and depose that he had used the ball for a fortnight, and it would beimpossible to
disprove it. Guthing v. Lynn 2 B. Ad. 232 supports the view that the terms are too vague to
make a contract, there being no limit as to time, a person might claim who took the influenza
ten years after using the remedy. There is no consideration moving from the plaintiff: Gerhard
v. Bates 2 E. B. 476. The present case differs from Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B.
860, for...