Offer to Public at LargeAcceptanceNotice to Offeror Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball (30., [1893] 1 QB. 256. This English case created the principle that persons who make promises will he bound to come good on their promises. The defendants were manufacturers of a medical preparation called the \"carbolic smoke hall.\" To sell their product they inserted an advertisement promoting a 100 reward in a number of newspapers. In 1893, one pound sterling {) was valued at $5. 00, thus 100 amounted to two years of a worker's wages. The plainnfpurchased and used the preparation according to the instructions and was then attacked by inuenza. She brought an action against the defendant for the 100 reward. The advertisement read as follows: \"100 reward will be paid by the Catholic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic inuenza, 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. 1,000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter. During the last epidemic of inuenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preven- tives 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, 105., post free. The ball can be relled at a cost of 5s. Address, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London\" THE COURT: The rst observation I will make is that we are not dealing with any inference of fact. We are dealing with an express promise to pay 100 in certain events. Read the advertisement how you will, and twist it about as you will, here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakeable \"100 reward will be paid by the Catholic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the inuenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.\" We must rst consider whether this was intended to be a promise at all, or whether it was a mere puff which meant nothing. Was it a mere puff? My answer to that question is No, and I base my answer upon this passage: \"1,000 pounds is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter.\" Now, for what was that money deposited or that statement made except to negative the suggestion that this was a mere pu and meant nothing at all? The deposit is called in aid by the advertiser as 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. I say this for the purpose of giving point to the observation that we are not inferring a promise; there is the promise, as plain as words can make it. It appears to me, therefore, that the defendants must perform their promise.... This case is over 100 years old. It established principles of law then that continue to apply as law today. What message should business persons of today take away from this