Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893]

[1893] 1 QB 256 · Court of Appeal of England and Wales · England and Wales

contract lawcontract lawconsumer protection law

Issue

Was the advertisement an enforceable unilateral offer?

Held

Yes. The ad was a unilateral offer accepted by performance.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Classic offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention case.

Facts

A company advertised a reward for users who still contracted influenza after using its product.

Issue

Was the advertisement an enforceable unilateral offer?

Held

Yes. The ad was a unilateral offer accepted by performance.

Ratio Decidendi

A clear reward advertisement can create a unilateral contract accepted by performance.

Reasoning

The deposit of money and specific promise showed intent to be bound.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. ([1893] 1 QB 256) strengthens a contract law answer because the case reflects the principle that A clear reward advertisement can create a unilateral contract accepted by performance. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Was the advertisement an enforceable unilateral offer? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Classic offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention case.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources