Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co your clothes whiter than white!"). Secondly, although it was not discussed in the case, there was evidence at the time that using the smoke ball actually made people more vulnerable to the flu (carbolic acid was put on the poisons register in 1900). The General Product Safety Regulations which are part of a European Union wide consumer protection regime (Directive 2001/95/EC) again provide criminal penalties for unsafe products. Thirdly, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which is also part of EU wide regulation under Directive 85/374/EEC) creates a statutory tort of strict liability for defective products that cause any kind of
Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co the Queen's Bench, Hawkins J decided that Carlill was bound to recover £100. The facts were not in dispute. Submissions were made by both sides and then Hawkins J gave his judgment. H. H. Asquith QC (the future Prime Minister) and Herman William Loehnis represented the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. They made three submissions. Firsly, that there was no contract, because Carbolic had not intended to create an obligation enforceable by law upon themselves, shown by the wide terms in which the advertisement was expressed. The advertisement said the "reward" was for anyone getting influenza "after having used the ball",