Question

In the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case, (the case where inhaling vapors was supposed to prevent the flu), one thing that was missing that is usually required to form a binding contract was

A. communication of acceptance of the offer

B. consideration

C. acceptance of the offer

D. all of the above

Answer 1

Carlil Vs Carbolic Smoke ball case is a famous case study where a medical firm advertised on its new drug, a smoke ball which would cure people’s flu, and in case of failure to cure, buyers would receive £100.

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.

It was argued that the advertisement was an offer to the world and is not binding. Argued that it is not made with anybody in particular. In point of law this advertisement is an offer to pay £100 to anybody who will perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer.

Defense council argued that “Supposing that the performance of the conditions is an acceptance of the offer, that acceptance ought to have been notified.” As a general procedure, when an offer is made, it is necessary to the same need to be accepted and notified to make it a binding contract.

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.

Therfore, in this case Communication of acceptance of offer is missing. However this case has been considered as an exception to the generic norms.