body: In the first-instance judgment [[1892] 2 Q.B. 484](https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I82727E91E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true), Hawkins J wrote "The facts not being in dispute." But how could've *Carbolic Smoke Ball Co* trusted Ms Carlill's proper use? Perhaps she misused it, or lied about using it at all after buying it! 
  
  
  Mindy Chen-Wishart. [*Contract Law* (2018 6 edn)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p. 60.
  
  
  
  > 
  > An advertisement may also, exceptionally, be treated as an offer rather than an
  >  invitation to treat. In *Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co* (1893), the manufacturer
  >  advertised the ‘carbolic smoke ball’ and offered to pay £100 to anyone catching
  >  influenza after using it in the specified manner, adding that £1,000 had been
  >  deposited in the bank to show their ‘sincerity in the matter’. C successfully sued
  >  for £100 when she caught influenza after proper use of the smoke ball. The court
  >  rejected the manufacturer’s claim that the advertisement was too vague and not
  >  seriously made. The Court held that: (i) the advertisement was an offer to the
  >  whole world; and (ii) a unilateral contract (see 2.3.6) was made with those who
  >  met the condition ‘on the faith of the advertisement’.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  Ewan McKendrick. [*Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials* (2018 8 ed)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Text-Cases-Materials/dp/019880816X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). p 55.
  
  
  
  > 
  > The defendants advertised their medicinal product, the now infamous ‘carbolic smoke ball’,
  >  in various newspapers in the following terms:
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > > 
  > > ‘100l. reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the
  > >  increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the
  > >  ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.
  > >  1000l. is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.
  > >  During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as
  > >  preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by
  > >  those using the carbolic smoke ball.
  > >  One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in
  > >  the world at the price, 10s., post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5s. Address, Carbolic
  > >  Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London.’
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > The plaintiff, in reliance upon this advertisement, purchased and used the product as directed
  >  but subsequently caught influenza. She sued for payment of the £100 and succeeded before
  >  Hawkins J. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal but the appeal was dismissed. It
  >  was held that the terms of the advertisement constituted an offer, the terms of which were
  >  accepted by the plaintiff with the result that she was entitled to recover the promised £100.
  > 
  > 
  > Bowen LJ [I skip the judgment extract.]
  > ---------------------------------------
  > 
  > 
  > ...
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: Why didn't Carbolic Smoke Ball Co dispute Ms Carlill's alleged proper use of their smoke ball?