Question

Pick a court case where remediation was required discuss if you believe the judgment was equitable or based on the facts presented there should have been additional requirements.

Answer 1

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by theCourt of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms.

Facts

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. made a product called the "smoke ball" and claimed it to be a cure for influenzaand a number of other diseases. (The 1889–1890 flu pandemic was estimated to have killed 1 million people.) The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The tube would be inserted into a user's nose and squeezed at the bottom to release the vapours. The nose would run, ostensibly flushing out viral infections.

The Company published advertisements in the Pall Mall Gazette and other newspapers on November 13, 1891, claiming that it would pay £100 (equivalent to £10,000 in 2016) to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions provided with it.

“

1) £100 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. 2) £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter. Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it three times daily for nearly two months until she contracted the flu on 17 January 1892. She claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. They ignored two letters from her husband, a solicitor. On a third request for her reward, they replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims", they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between the company and her, so the company ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract. Judgment: The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs. Carlill. Among the reasons given by the three judges were (1) that the advertisement was not a unilateral offer to all the world but an offer restricted to those who acted upon the terms contained in the advertisement (2) that satisfying conditions for using the smoke ball constituted acceptance of the offer (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 advertisement was a clear benefit to Carbolic (4) that the company's claim that £1000 was deposited at the Alliance Bank showed the serious intention to be legally bound. £100. reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill , who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.” Yes the judgement was equitable because It is an offer made to public at large and hence anyone can accept and do the desired act (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.). In terms of Section 8 of the Act, anyone performing the conditions of the offer can be considered to have accepted the offer. Until the general offer is retracted or withdrawn, it can be accepted by anyone at any time as it is a continuing offer.