*CARLILL V CARBOLIC SMOKEBALL & CO.(1893)* CITATION: Carlill V Carbolic Smokeball Company(1893) 1 QB 256 (CA) AREA OF LAW: Contract Law FACTS OF THE CASE. 1. The Carbolic Smokeball Company advertise that their product, a smoke ball, could prevent Influenza. They offered £100 to anyone who used the product and still contracted the flu. 2. The advertisement stated that £1,000 had been deposited in a bank, "Showing their sincerity on the matter". 3. Mrs Louisa Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as directed, but still contracted Influenza, she then attempted to claim the £1,000 reward. 4. the company refused to pay, arguing that the advertisement was not a valid contract. LEGAL QUESTION The main question was whether the advertisement constituted a valid offer that could be accepted as a form of a binding contract. DECISION OF THE COURT The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mrs Carlill, stating that she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. KEY PRINCIPLES 1. An advertisement can constitute a valid offer if it is clear, definite and shows an intention to be bound. 2. Acceptance of an offer can be made by conduct without the need for formal communication to the offeror. 3. The deposit of money indicated the company's intentions to be bound by the offer. This case remains influential in contract law, particularly in areas concerning offers, acceptance, and the formation of unilateral contracts. It is often studied as a fundamental case in contract law. ©_GavelforGirls⚖️✨