Watch the video and explain why the plaintiff won and what you need for a valid contract. Specifically address if there was valid consideration.

Carlill v the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=carlill+vs+carbolic+smoke+ball+video&docid=608029440610536591&mid=24A2A416BD77D483CC1324A2A416BD77D483CC13&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

At the heart of this case is the question of what constitutes a contract (something that we'll return to later in this list). Back in 1891, Britain was at the tail end of a flu pandemic that killed around a million people worldwide, and Carbolic Smoke Balls were a quack remedy to avoid getting the flu. It involved putting a tube up your nose, which was attached to a rubber ball filled with carbolic acid, which would cause your nose to run. So confident were the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in the quality of their product that they offered a 100 reward to anyone who used a Carbolic Smoke Ball regularly and subsequently got the flu - and it's worth bearing in mind that 100 in 1981 is the equivalent of around 11,500 in today's money

Mrs Carlill used the Carbolic Smoke Ball religiously, and came down with the flu all the same. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. had said in their advertisements, "100 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" and also added, "1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, showing our sincerity in the matter" but when Mrs Carlill requested her money, they refused to pay up. The court held that they had entered into a valid contract with Mrs Carlill, and ordered them to hand over the money

FACTS OF THE CASE : The case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball is one of the most important cases in English legal history. In essence it defined what it is to create an 'offer' in an advertisement, and how a member of the public successfully argued that they had *accepted" the offer and performed under the terms of the advertisement (contract.) FACTS OF THE CASE : . The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1891 that their Carbolic Smoke Ball was a cure for flu, bronchitis, coughs, colds, headaches, hay-fever, whooping cough, laryngitis and sore throats amongst others. It was so confident of the usefulness of the carbolic smoke ball, and its ability not only to cure but also to prevent someone from getting the flu, that it advertised on the following basis: Anyone who used the carbolic smoke ball in a particular way for a specified period of time, but who still caught influenza afterwards, would be entitled to claim f100 from the company. The advertisement went on to say that the company had gone so far as to deposit f1000 in the Alliance Bank in the event of any such claims. The plaintiff (who nowadays would be called the 'claimant") saw the advertisement and decided to buy one of the carbolic smoke balls. She used it exactly as advised, but still caught influenza. She took the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to court in order to claim her f100. The court found in her favour, but the defendants appealed