FORMATION OF AN AGREEMENTCarlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.Performed by: Khattab ImaneSupervised by: Ms LoubnaLaw Fundamentals - Assignment 1 Assessment CriteriaB before:LORD JUSTICE BOWENLORD JUSTICE LINDLEYLORD JUSTICE AL SMITH______________________Carlill Plaintiff v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company DefendantsSample Carlill Case Summary v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484Prepared by Khattab ImaneProcedural HistoryCarbolic smoke ball Co; produced and sold the carbolic smoke ball. The company developed several newspaper advertisements offering a £100 reward to anyone who uses the smoke ball three times a day as directed and contracts flu, cold or any other illness. After seeing the ad Carlill (P) purchased the ball and used it as directed. Carlill contracted the flu and claimed the reward. Carbolic Smoke Ball did not agree to pay and Carlill proceeded for damages arising from breach of contract. The judgment was entered for £100 for Carlill and the company appealed. The Fact On 01/13/1891, the above advertisement was placed in various newspapers: £100 REWARD WILL BE PAID BY THECARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO. to any person who contracts the growing epidemic, FLU, cold or any disease caused by cold, after using the CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL according to the printed instructions provided with each ball. £1000 IS DEPOSITED at ALLIANCE BANK, Regent Street, demonstrating our sincerity in the matter. (Carbolicsmokeball .co.uk, 2000)Louisa Carlill; The plaintiff; Has been a consumer of Carbolic Smoke Ball Co for a period of time. The latter believed that ... middle of paper ... that it was made available to the general public and could be consulted by the public. How would an ordinary person reading this document interpret it? His opinion was further structured and often quoted. writing for the majority, you dictate that the contract was not with the whole world, but rather with people who meet the stipulated conditions. It is based on your interpretation of the document that there is no time limit to the contract. So Lord Bowen LJ came to the conclusion that, if so: it seems to me that the advertisement was so clear and there was ample consideration for the promise, and that, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover her reward. LORD JUSTICE AL SMITH His judgment was decided on the same basis as Bowen J and Lindley; it was more general. The appeal was rejected by all three judges and Mrs Louisa Carlill was finally awarded the £100 reward