The — flu pandemic was estimated to have killed 1 million people.
Mrs Carlill was entitled to recover the reward. Lord Justice Lindley Promise or puff? This could have no other purpose than to negate any suggestion that this was a mere puff.
Was it a binding promise? Is notification of acceptance required? On the issue of whether notification of acceptance was required: Unquestionably, as a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that the acceptance should be notified.
This offer is a continuing offer. It was never revoked, and if notice of acceptance is required - which I doubt very much If he gets notice of the acceptance before his offer is revoked, that in principle is all you want.
I, however, think that the true view, in a case of this kind, is that the person who makes the offer shews by his language and from the nature of the transaction that he does not expect and does not require notice of the acceptance apart from notice of the performance. His Lordship observed that the language is vague and uncertain in some respects.
Was there valid consideration? His Lordship rejected this argument, stating: Therefore, the advertisers get out of the use an advantage which is enough to constitute a consideration. This alone was sufficient to constitute consideration. Conclusion His Lordship concluded: His Lordship noted that the advertisement constituted an offer.
It was intended to be issued to the public and to be read by the public. His Lordship considered there were two possible time frames within which the claim could be brought, but preferred the construction that the reward would be open while the smoke ball was still being used: I think, more probably, it means that the smoke ball will be a protection while it is in use.
That seems to me the way in which an ordinary person would understand an advertisement about medicine, and about a specific against influenza.
I, therefore, have myself no hesitation in saying that I think, on the construction of this advertisement, the protection was to endure during the time that the carbolic smoke ball was being used.
My brother, the Lord Justice who preceded me, thinks that the contract would be sufficiently definite if you were to read it in the sense that the protection was to be warranted during a reasonable period after use.
I have some difficulty myself on that point; but it is not necessary for me to consider it further, because the disease here was contracted during the use of the carbolic smoke ball.Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court 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.
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.1 Q.B. (Court of Appeal ) Gem Broadcasting, Inc. v. Minker So.2d (District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, ) Consideration Moral Obligation and Consideration Promissory Estoppel Parol Evidence and Interpretation. The Defendant, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company of London (Defendant), placed an advertisement in several newspapers on November 13, , stating that its product, “The Carbolic Smoke Ball”, when used three times daily, for two weeks, would prevent colds and influenza.
Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward. There was a unilateral contract comprising the offer (by advertisement) of the Carbolic Smoke Ball company) and the acceptance (by performance of conditions stated in the offer) by Mrs Carlill.
Carlill (plaintiff) purchased a Carbolic Smoke Ball and later contracted influenza despite using the ball as directed by Carbolic’s instructions.
Carlill brought suit to recover the one hundred pounds. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company  EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive ways.