Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Bomb

2). Discuss and compare the decision of the High Court and the Appeal Court in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.) (CO2) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 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. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. made a product called the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases, in the context of the 1889–1890 flu pandemic .The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid. 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 to anyone who got sick with influenza after using its product according to the instructions provided with it. 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 her and the company, and so they ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract. The case was heard in both the high court (Queen’s