经典案例英国合同法carbolic smoke ball

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
【1893】1Q.B.256.

Facts: The defendant advertised their balls in the newspapers and claimed that his products were sold as preventives against the influenza.￡100 reward will be paid by the defendant to any person who contracts the increasing colds, after having used the balls. The plaintiff, on the faith of this advertisement, bought one of the balls and used it according the directions, but after she had performed the condition of the advertisement, she was still attacked by influenza. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant.

Court decision: Judgment for the plaintiff.

Issue: Whether the advertisement was intended to be a promise or whether it was a mere puff which meant nothing？

Reasoning:
1.The deposit is called in aid by the advertiser as a proof of his sincerity in the matter-that is, the sincerity of his promise to pay this ￡100 in the event which he has specified. So there is the promise, as plain as words can make it.
2.In point of law this advertisement is an offer to pay ￡100 to anyone who will perform these conditions, and the performance of the conditions is the acceptance of the offer.
3.If the defendant can get the public to have confidence enough to use it, will react and produce a sale which is directly beneficial to them. Therefore, the advertisers get out of the use an advantage which is enough to constitute a consideration. It appears to me that there is an inconvenience, not to say a detriment to any person who uses the smoke ball. I am of opinion that there is ample consideration for the promise.

Rule of law: As a general proposition, when an offer is made, it is necessary in order to make a binding contract, not only that it should be accepted, but that the acceptance should be notified. But it is an exception to that r
ule in this case. The notification of the acceptance need not precede the performance. This offer is a continuing offer and never revoked.