Question

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball , Do you agree with the Court that the actions of the Company created an offer that was open to be accepted by Ms. Carlill? Do you agree with the concept of "Invitation to Treat"?

Answer 1

Carlile vs carbolic smoke ball case is considered as one of the most cited cases of the common law of contract. The appeal, in this case, helps that carbolic smoke ball company made an advertisement that claims that a reward will be awarded who would be not treated by the public smoke ball, a flue remedy. It was considered as a binding unilateral offer that would be accepted by everyone who accepted the terms. In this case, the company did not pay the $100 amount to Mrs. Carlil, who could not get well after taking that remedy.

Mrs. Carlil sued this company in court and asked for the reward.

Yes, I totally agree with the court decision. Court held that the company must pay a reward to Mrs. Carlil because the advert was a unilateral offer which she had accepted and competed the terms and conditions to get the offer.

This decision was correct because it was based on invitation to treat.

Yes, I agree with the concept of the invitation to treat in which offeror invites the offered to form a contract. In this case, the unilateral offer was made by the offeror carbolic smoke ball to offered, Mrs. Carlil.