contract-law england-and-wales
Why didn&#39;t Carbolic Smoke Ball Co dispute Ms Carlill&#39;s alleged proper use of their smoke ball?
<p>In the first-instance judgment <a href="https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I82727E91E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[1892] 2 Q.B. 484</a>, Hawkins J wrote "The facts not being in dispute." But how could've <em>Carbolic Smoke Ball Co</em> trusted Ms Carlill's proper use? Perhaps  she misused it, or lied about using it at all after buying it! </p>

<p>Mindy Chen-Wishart. <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Mindy-Chen-Wishart/dp/0198806353/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Contract Law</em> (2018 6 edn)</a>. p. 60.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An advertisement may also, exceptionally, be treated as an offer rather than an
  invitation to treat. In <em>Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co</em> (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’.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Ewan McKendrick. <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Law-Text-Cases-Materials/dp/019880816X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials</em> (2018 8 ed)</a>. p 55.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The defendants advertised their medicinal product, the now infamous ‘carbolic smoke ball’,
  in various newspapers in the following terms:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>‘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.’</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <h2>Bowen LJ [I skip the judgment extract.]</h2>
  
  <p>...</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Saying “liar, liar pants on fire” is not admissible as evidence in court.</h2>

<p><strong>What evidence would they produce that she didn’t?</strong></p>

<p>Carlill would presumably testify that she had followed the instructions and that she witnessed herself doing so. Carbolic would testify nothing. On the balance of probabilities, which evidence do you prefer?</p>

<p>Carbolic is not going to waste their or the courts time trying to prove something they can’t.</p>

<p>In most court cases, most facts are not in dispute.</p>

<p>They didn't dispute it, because they wanted to quash the guarantee, as per the snippet you gave. The company wanted to prevent other people from making the same claim.</p>

<p>Basically, whether they won or lost her case, there would be more of the same type of case, so it was more in their interest to stop that.</p>
