Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Case Name: Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

Date Decided: 8th December 1892
Defendant: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Plaintiff: Louisa Carlil

Facts

 The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1891 that their
Carbolic Smoke Ball was a cure for flu, bronchitis, coughs, colds, headaches, hay-fever,
whooping cough, laryngitis and sore throats amongst others.
 It was so confident of the usefulness of the carbolic smoke ball, and its ability not only to
cure but also to prevent someone from getting the ‘flu, that it advertised on the following
basis: Anyone who used the carbolic smoke ball in a particular way for a specified period
of time, but who still caught influenza afterwards, would be entitled to claim £100 from
the company.
 The advertisement went on to say that the company had gone so far as to deposit £1000
in the Alliance Bank in the event of any such claims. The plaintiff (who nowadays would
be called the ‘claimant’) saw the advertisement and decided to buy one of the carbolic
smoke balls. She used it exactly as advised, but still caught influenza. She took the
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to court in order to claim her £100. The court found in
her favour, but the defendants appealed.
 The appeal was dismissed unanimously by all the three judges and Mrs. Carlill finally
received compensation of £100. She lived to the ripe old age of 96. She died on March
10, 1942; according to her doctor principally of old age. There was one cause noted
though: Influenza.
 Mr. Roe, owner of Carbolic Smoke ball Co., continued with his aggressive marketing.
This time he increased the reward to £200 following the loss of the case.

Issue

 Could the smoke ball company be bound in contract law by its advertisement

Decision

 Yes, a contract has been made

 A Cambridge undergraduate who was a minor hired a horse for riding.

 He specifically stated that he did not want a horse for jumping. He lent the horse to a friend who
used it for jumping.

 The horse fell and was injured. It was held that the infant was liable as the act which caused the
injury was outside the purview of the contract and could not be constructed as mere abuse of
the terms of the contract.

 It was not an abuse of the contract.