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
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co the law of contract. The case concerned a flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed as an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a contract. The Court of Appeal held the essential elements of a contract were all present, including offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. made a