Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Case Brief

Summary of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.


Plaintiff: Carlill

Defendant: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Facts: Defendants advertised their balls curing for cold, that they would pay for any person 100l who contracted to use the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions and defendant also added a passage that “1000lis deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter". Plaintiff relied on it but it didn’t work as what the defendant said. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

Issue: Whether plaintiff’s performance can be an acceptance?

Reasoning: The court reckons that “1000l is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter" embodied that defendant did make a promise.

Precedent shows that the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer.

Although a general proposition is that an acceptance should be notified by the offeree to the offeror, in this case, there is an exception. This offer is a continuing offer and they are open to the observation that the notification of the acceptance need not precede the performance. From the nature of this transaction, defendant does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance apart from notice of the performance.

Holding: Judgment is for plaintiff.

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner