{"id":3568,"date":"2018-02-02T08:40:45","date_gmt":"2018-02-02T08:40:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-08-16T12:16:19","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T12:16:19","slug":"carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.php","title":{"rendered":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish. The intention of the parties must be ascertained whether subjectively or objectively, together with whether or not the accepting party has provided either notice of acceptance \u2013 if required – or any consideration to allow the (unilateral) contract to form.<\/p>\n

Issues raised by Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co<\/h3>\n

Advertisements may be generally intended only as invitations to treat, i.e. inviting further negotiation before a contract is concluded, but their form, wording and factual context are all important. Carlill dealt with (a) how and when an advertisement will amount to a unilateral offer, (b) what amounts to performance of the conditions contained in an advertisement, and (c) notification or otherwise of the acceptance of the offer.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/h2>\n

In 1891 – a time when there was no statutory consumer protection and there was an influenza epidemic – the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company issued an florid advertisement in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers offering to pay \u00a3100 to anyone who contracted influenza having used one of their devices three times daily for two weeks as specified in the printed instructions supplied. The company\u2019s advertisement further stated that \u00a31000 was deposited at the bank to confirm their sincerity.<\/p>\n

On the strength of the advertisement, Louisa Carlill bought a smoke ball and used it as directed for over 7 weeks before she contracted influenza.\u00a0 She sued for breach of contract.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h2>\n

As a result of the range of defences submitted by the defendants, the Court of Appeal was able to comprehensively review the law around unilateral contracts.<\/p>\n

This form of contract arises when party A commits itself to a contingent obligation in certain circumstances, (these contracts are sometimes called \u2018if\u2019 contracts), but potential accepters \u2013 e.g. party B – make no commitment unless and until they accept the offer when a contract is formed.<\/p>\n

The claimant succeeded on a number of grounds.\u00a0 All three judges found the inclusion of the statement about the \u00a31000 deposit compelling, meaning that an ordinary person would treat the offer to pay \u00a3100 as \u2018an offer intended to be acted upon, [which], when acted upon and the conditions performed, constituted a promise to pay\u2019. \u00a0Some view this case as crystallising the doctrine of \u2018intent to create legal relations\u2019 – contractual intention is essential for a binding contract.<\/p>\n

Further, the width of the advertisement was not problematic. The offer was made to all the world, not with all the world. The contract is then made with the limited number of people who perform the condition on the faith of the advert.\u00a0 Advertisements for reward were often similarly worded, and regarded as offers which could be accepted by anyone who satisfied the condition(s).<\/p>\n

That the claimant had not given notice of her acceptance was irrelevant. The company had impliedly waived the need for this, the acceptee acting in response to, and as stipulated by, the offer dispensing with the need for notice.<\/p>\n

Consideration was supplied by the inconvenience suffered by the claimant in using the device as instructed and\/or the advantage the company received each time an individual purchase of their product was made, each purchase boosting trade.<\/p>\n

Subsequent Impact of Carlill on unilateral contracts<\/h2>\n

Advertisement amounting to an offer<\/h3>\n

Whilst the intention of the person making the statement may be relevant, the courts have always dealt with this issue pragmatically, looking at the context and clarity of the advertisement and the practical consequences of deciding one way or the other. Generally, an advertisement in a newspaper, on a hoarding or a television commercial is only an invitation to treat Advertising an auction is not a promise to hold it.\u00a0 However, if the advertisement contains a clear expression of willingness to be bound, perhaps by including the reference to \u2018first come, first served\u2019 or \u2018while stocks last\u2019, then that can amount to an offer. \u00a0Such \u2018promisor objectivity\u2019 amounts to common sense.<\/p>\n

Consideration arises in a unilateral contract in the form of \u2018induced reliance\u2019 This was clearly set out in Bowerman v ABTA>, echoing the court\u2019s reference in Carlill to the advantage to the defendant company whenever an individual purchase was made.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, the legal basis as set out in Carlill has remained undisputed, but difficulties have arisen in applying the law to each case\u2019s individual facts. \u00a0In Bowerman v ABTA the majority of the Court of Appeal found in favour of the claimant, but Hirst LJ dissented, finding that the wording of the defendant\u2019s Notice was \u2018grammatically descriptive\u2019 only and without any specific words of promise. Waite LJ agreed that the document was confusingly drafted, but his construction found that in its overall factual context there was such intention. Similarly, an \u2018if\u2019 contract involving casting votes was not disputed on that aspect of the claim.<\/p>\n

What amounts to performance<\/h3>\n

Once the promisee acts on the promise by undertaking the action, the promisor cannot revoke or withdraw his offer.\u00a0 There is no answering obligation on the promisee to continue the action to completion, but if it is left incomplete, there is no entitlement to claim the promised reward.<\/p>\n

Where Carlill has not assisted later generations is in the area of acceptance by part performance.\u00a0 At what point can acceptance of such an offer be said to have occurred? This has proved a vexed question, but generally, once the promisee\u2019s conduct amounts to actual part performance, the offer can no longer be withdrawn.<\/p>\n

Notification or otherwise of acceptance of the offer<\/h3>\n

The courts have continued to find that acceptance can provided by performing the conditions attached to the offer.\u00a0 As in Carlill, it is the expectation of the ordinary person if presented with the offer\/invitation wording that has been applied.\u00a0 In Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd, the court found that \u2018nobody hearing the promise made in (the) announcement would for one moment expect \u2026 to be able to benefit from it only if he \u2026 positively accepted the offer\u2019.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Carlill remains a foundation stone of the modern law of contract in the areas of contractual intention and the overall form and construction of unilateral contracts. \u00a0Singular facts and clear, succinct judgments from an era when consumer protection was only provided by the courts\u2019 development of the common law have combined to create an outstanding example of the power of one case to shape the future.<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/h2>\n

Primary sources \u2013 caselaw<\/h3>\n

Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394<\/p>\n

Azevedo v IMCOPA [2013] EWCA Civ 364<\/p>\n

Bowerman v ABTA [1996] CLC 451<\/p>\n

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893]<\/a> 1 QB 256<\/p>\n

Harris v Nickerson (1873)<\/a> LR & QB 286<\/p>\n

Partridge v Crittenden [1968]<\/a> 1 WLR 1204<\/p>\n

Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2008] Fam 1<\/p>\n

Williams v Carwardine (1833) 110 ER 590<\/p>\n

Secondary sources<\/h3>\n

Stone R The Modern Law of Contract 10th edition<\/p>\n

Chitty on Contracts 31st edition<\/p>\n

Andrews N Contract Law 2nd edition<\/p>\n

McMeel G \u2018Contractual Intention: the smoke ball strikes back\u2019 1997 113 LQR 47<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/h3>\n

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

e.g Claimant could not by any act of her own establish a claim as she had no control over contracting flu; the advertisement too vague to amount to an offer; no consideration from the claimant; any contract was only a wagering contract and so void (under then current law).<\/p>\n

per AL Smith LJ at 274<\/p>\n

Andrews N Contract Law\u00a0 2nd edition p158 at para 6.02<\/p>\n

per Bowen LJ at 268; author\u2019s italics for emphasis<\/p>\n

Williams v Carwardine (1833) 110 ER 590 \u2013 reward for information leading to the conviction of criminal<\/p>\n

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 at 262-263 per Bowen LJ<\/p>\n

Ibid p 264-265<\/p>\n

See eg Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204 \u2013 classified advert in a periodical<\/p>\n

Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR & QB 286<\/p>\n

See Stone R the modern Law of Contract 10th edition p42 para 2.7.7<\/p>\n

McMeel G Contractual Intention: the smoke ball strikes back\u2019 (1997) 113 LQR 47<\/p>\n

[1996] CLC 451<\/p>\n

[1996] CLC 451<\/p>\n

Ibid at p354-455<\/p>\n

Ibid at p457<\/p>\n

Azevedo v IMCOPA [2013] EWCA Civ 364<\/p>\n

See e.g Soulsbury v Soulsbury [2008] Fam 1 citing Carlill with approval<\/p>\n

See Chitty on Contracts para 2-079<\/p>\n

[2013] EWCA Civ 394<\/p>\n

Ibid at para 98 per Elias LJ<\/p>\n

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

The difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.<\/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-3568","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 difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.\" \/>\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-2.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 difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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=\"7 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-2.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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-2.php\"},\"wordCount\":1332,\"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-2.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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 difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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-2.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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 difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.","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-2.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co","og_description":"The difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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":"7 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-2.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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-2.php"},"wordCount":1332,"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-2.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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 difference between a valid offer and a mere invitation to treat, especially in the world of advertisements but also beyond, can be difficult to establish.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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-2.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/contract-law\/carlill-v-carbolic-smoke-ball-co-2.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\/3568","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=3568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}