Creosote similar caustic and antiseptic properties, but noted that it was different, in that it was an acid and formed salts. Nonetheless, Reichenbach argued that creosote was also the active element, as it was in pyroligneous acid. Despite evidence to the contrary, his view held sway with most chemists, and it became commonly accepted wisdom that creosote, carbolic acid, and phenylhydrate were identical substances, with different degrees of purity. Carbolic acid was soon commonly sold under the name "creosote", and the scarcity of wood-tar creosote in some places led chemists to believe that it was the same substance as that described
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",