{"id":2950,"date":"2018-02-02T08:40:45","date_gmt":"2018-02-02T08:40:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-08-31T16:21:41","modified_gmt":"2021-08-31T16:21:41","slug":"carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php","title":{"rendered":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company<\/a> [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies.<\/p>\n

A medical firm advertised that its new wonder drug, a smoke ball, would cure people\u2019s flu, and if it did not, buyers would receive \u00a3100. When sued, Carbolic argued the ad was not to be taken as a serious, legally binding offer. It was merely an invitation to treat, and a gimmick. But the court of appeal held that it would appear to a reasonable man that Carbolic had made a serious offer. People had given good \u201cconsideration\u201d for it by going to the \u201cdistinct inconvenience\u201d of using a faulty product.<\/p>\n

Case Facts<\/h2>\n

Court<\/strong>: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)<\/p>\n

Full Case Name<\/strong>: Louisa Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company<\/p>\n

Date Decided<\/strong>: 8th December 1892<\/p>\n

Citations<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

[1892] EWCA Civil 1,<\/p>\n

[1893] 1 QB 256<\/p>\n

Judges<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Lindley LJ,<\/p>\n

Bowen LJ<\/p>\n

And AL Smith LJ<\/p>\n

Prior Actions:<\/strong>\u00a0Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484<\/p>\n

Defendant<\/strong>: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company<\/p>\n

The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening. The ball is filled with Carbolic acid (Phenol). The tube is supposed to be inserted in one of your nostrils and the bottom part of the rubber ball is to be pressed. The gas enters your respiratory tract and flushes out al the viruses.<\/p>\n

Advertisement:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13, 1891, claiming that it would pay \u00a3100 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions set out in the advertisement.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u00a3100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic 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. \u00a31000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, 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, 10s post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5s. Address: \u201cCarbolic Smoke Ball Company, \u201c27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London.\u201d<\/p>\n

Plaintiff:<\/strong>\u00a0Louisa Carlill<\/p>\n

She, believing in the accuracy of the statement made in the advertisement with respect to efficacy of the smoke ball in cases of influenza, purchased one packet and used it thrice everyday from mid November, 1891 until 17th Jan, 1892, at which latter date she had an attack of influenza.<\/p>\n

Thereupon, her husband wrote a letter for her to the defendants, stating what had happened, and asking for \u00a3100 as promised in the advertisement. They refused and this action was brought in court before Hawkins J. and a special jury. Arguments were heard on both the sides and finally the verdict was given in favor of Mrs. Carlill.<\/p>\n

The defendants appealed.<\/p>\n

Judgments<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company\u2019s arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for \u00a3100 with Mrs. Carlill<\/p>\n

Among the reasons given by the three judges were<\/p>\n

(1) That the advertisement was a unilateral offer to the entire world<\/p>\n

(2) The satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer.<\/p>\n

(3) That purchasing or merely using the smoke ball constituted good consideration, because it was a distinct detriment incurred at the behest of the company and, furthermore, more people buying smoke balls by relying on the advert was a clear benefit to Carbolic<\/p>\n

(4) That the company\u2019s claim that \u00a31000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound.<\/p>\n

The judgments of the court were as follows.<\/p>\n

Lindley.L.J:<\/strong><\/p>\n

He dismissed the appeal. He, giving his decision first and reasons later, explained his judgment answering to all allegations put up by the defendant\u2019s counsel and upholding the lower court\u2019s decision. An excerpt which makes a short shrift of the insurance and wagering contract that were dealt with in the Queen\u2019s Bench<\/p>\n

\u201cI will begin by referring to two points which were raised in the Court below. I refer to them simply for the purpose of dismissing them. First, it is said no action will lie upon this contract because it is a policy. You have only to look at the advertisement to dismiss that suggestion. Then it was said that it is a bet. Hawkins, J., came to the conclusion that nobody ever dreamt of a bet, and that the transaction had nothing whatever in common with a bet. I so entirely agree with him that I pass over this contention also as not worth serious attention.<\/p>\n

Then, what is left? The first observation I will make is that we are not dealing with any inference of fact. We are dealing with an express promise to pay 100\u00a3 in certain events. Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will, here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakable \u2014<\/p>\n

\u201c100\u00a3 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.\u201d<\/p>\n

He discussed the following issues with respect to this case:<\/p>\n

The advertisement was not a \u201cmere puff\u201d as had been alleged by the defendant. The very fact that \u00a31000 was deposited with Alliance Bank, Regent Street. So what is that money for? What is that passage put in for, except to negative the suggestion that this is a mere puff, and means nothing at all? The deposit is called in aid by the advertisers as proof of their sincerity in the matter. What do they mean?-The advertisement definitely means seriousness.<\/p>\n

The advertisement was an offer to the world. It was contended that it is not binding. It is said that it is not made with anybody in particular. In point of law this advertisement is an offer to pay 100\u2113 to anybody who will perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer.<\/p>\n

Communication of acceptance is not necessary for a contract when people\u2019s conduct manifests an intention to contract. But then the defense council put forth a point \u201cSupposing that the performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the offer, that acceptance ought to have been notified.\u201d Unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that the acceptance should be notified. But in cases of this kind, it is apprehended that they are an exception to the rule that the notification of the acceptance need not precede the performance. This offer is a continuing offer. It was never revoked, and if notice of acceptance is required, then the person who makes the offer gets the notice of acceptance contemporaneously with his notice of the performance of the condition before his offer is revoked.<\/p>\n

The defense counsel has argued that this advertisement is a nudum pactum \u2013 that there is no consideration. They say \u201cit is of no advantage to them how much the ball is used\u201d. The judged answered \u201cThe answer to that I think is this. It is quite obvious that, in the view of the defendants, the advertisers, a use of the smoke balls by the public, if they can get the public to have confidence enough to use them, will react and produce a sale which is directly beneficial to them, the defendants. Therefore, it appears to me that out of this transaction emerges an advantage to them which is enough to constitute a consideration.\u201d But there is also another view to this point which the Judge Lindley aptly asserts: what about the person who puts himself\/ herself in an inconvenient, if not detrimental to his health, while inhaling potent fumes of carbolic gas? So therefore there is ample consideration to this promise.<\/p>\n

Bowen, L.J:<\/strong><\/p>\n

He concurred with Lindley, L.J. He was of the same opinion but he also discussed few points with respect to vagueness and time period of the contract. His opinion was more tightly structured in style and frequently cited.<\/p>\n

In response to Defense\u2019s council point that this contract is too vague to be enforced. He, dismissing their claim, relied on his construction of the document and he said that there is no time limit fixed for catching influenza, and it cannot seriously be meant to promise to pay money to a person who catches influenza at any time after the inhaling of the smoke ball. There is also great vagueness in the limitation of the persons with whom the contract was intended to be made. But this document was intended to be issued to the public and to be read by public. So it is very important to understand how would a commoner interpret this advertisement? And the effect of this advertisement was to attract people and make them use it, which would amount to more sales, thus more profit. Based on this intention to promote the distribution of the smoke balls and to increase its usage, the advertisement was accepted as a contract addressing public at large but limited to those people who are using it either for prevention or treatment of influenza and other mentioned diseases.<\/p>\n

Another point which was discussed in the court was that of the time limit of the contract. How do you define reasonable time period? And after great discussion, the respected judge came to a conclusion that the protection warranted by the contract was to last during the epidemic (1889-90 Flu epidemic).If so, it was during this epidemic that the plaintiff contracted this disease. So the contract holds.<\/p>\n

A.L.Smith, L.J:<\/strong><\/p>\n

His judgment was more general and concurred with both Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n

Aftermath<\/h2>\n

The appeal was dismissed unanimously by all the three judges and Mrs. Carlill finally received compensation of \u00a3100. 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.<\/p>\n

Mr. Roe, owner of Carbolic Smoke ball Co., continued with his aggressive marketing. This time he increased the reward to \u00a3200 following the loss of the case.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

This is the most frequently cited case in the common law of contract, particularly where unilateral contracts are concerned. It provides an excellent study of the basic principles of contract and how they relate to every day life. Essential elements of contract including Offer & Acceptance, Consideration, Intention to create Legal Relations, etc. were mentioned in this case. This case forms the foundation for Contract Law.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-2950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essayscontract-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\"},\"wordCount\":1900,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Contract Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\",\"name\":\"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | LawTeacher.net","description":"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co","og_description":"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php"},"wordCount":1900,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Contract Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php","name":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"The company made a product called \u201cSmoke Ball\u201d. It claimed to be a cure to influenza and many other diseases, in the context 1889-1890: Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed 1 million people. The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube fixed to its opening.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-contract-law-essay.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}