B) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal (CLO3) (2+2+1=5 marks) A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:- 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter." Mrs Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used them according to the directions and caught flu. She sought to claim the stated 100 reward. The defendant raised the 2 following arguments to demonstrate the advertisement was a mere invitation to treat rather than an offer: 1. The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer. 2. It is not possible to make an offer to the world. 3. There was no notification of acceptance. 4. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu. 5. There was no consideration provided since the 'offer' did not specify that the user of the balls must have purchased them. Explain the above case and belongs to which contract?

Ans: