<P> Professor A.W.B. Simpson, in an article entitled' Quackery and Contract Law' gave the background of the case as part of the scare arising from the Russian influenza pandemic of 1889 - 90 . He points out that nobody knew what the flu actually was yet, nor how to prevent or cure it . After it was patented, the Carbolic Smoke Ball had in fact become rather popular in many esteemed circles including the Bishop of London who found it "has helped me greatly". The inventor, Frederick Roe, had advertised heavily when the epidemic hit London, which was getting extensive press coverage . But in the Pall Mall Gazette (just one instance where he put ads) there were many, many more quack remedies for misunderstood problems . Once the case had been decided by the Court of Appeal, it met with general approval, but especially so from the medical community . The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had been fighting an ongoing battle against quack remedies, and had wanted specifically to get carbolic acid on the poisons register since 1882 . Although without sympathy for the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company itself, Simpson casts doubt on whether Carlill was rightly decided . </P> <P> "The analytical problems arose in a particularly acute form in the smoke ball case . Thus it seemed very peculiar to say that there had been any sort of agreement between Mrs. Carlill and the company, which did not even know of her existence until January 20, when her husband wrote to them to complain . There were indeed earlier cases permitting the recovery of advertised rewards; the leading case here was Williams v Carwardine, where a reward of £ 20 had been promised by a handbill for information leading to the conviction of the murderer of Walter Carwardine, and Williams, who gave such information, successfully sued to recover the reward . But this was long before the more modern doctrines had become so firmly embodied in legal thinking, and in any event the case was quite distinguishable . It concerned a reward, whereas Mrs. Carlill was seeking compensation . There could be at most only a few claimants for this, but there is no limit on the number of those who may catch influenza . Furthermore, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company had had no chance to check the validity of claims, of which there could be an indefinite number; much was made of this point in the argument . But the judges were not impressed with these difficulties, and their attitude was no doubt influenced by the view that the defendants were rogues . They fit their decision into the structure of the law by boldly declaring that the performance of the conditions was the acceptance, thus fictitiously extending the concept of acceptance to cover the facts . And, since 1893, law students have been introduced to the mysteries of the unilateral contract through the vehicle of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. and taught to repeat, as a sort of magical incantation of contract law, that in the case of unilateral contracts performance of the act specified in the offer constitutes acceptance, and need not be communicated to the offeror ." </P> <P> In a much more recent American case from the Southern District of New York, Leonard v Pepsico, Inc, Judge Kimba Wood wrote, </P> <P> "Long a staple of law school curricula, Carbolic Smoke Ball owes its fame not merely to "the comic and slightly mysterious object involved"... but also to its role in developing the law of unilateral offers ." </P>

Case law- carlill vs carbolic smoke ball co