The ABZ company offered by an advertisement, a reward of ₹1,000 to anyone who contacted influenza after using smoke ball in the specified manner. Amita used the smoke ball in the specified manner, but was attacked by inf

The suit filed by Amita against ABZ company is maintainable . The communication of the offer may be general or specific. Where an offer is made to a specific person it is called a specific offer and it can be accepted only by that person. But when an offer is addressed to an uncertain body of individuals i.e. the world at large, it is a general offer and can be accepted by any member of the general public by fulfilling the condition laid down in the offer. This case is analogous to the landmark case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) . In that case, the company advertised that it would pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using their smoke ball according to the directions. Mrs. Carlill used it as directed but still caught influenza and claimed the reward. The court held that the advertisement constituted a general offer, and performance of the conditions of the offer (using the smoke ball as directed and contracting influenza) amounted to acceptance. Notice of acceptance was not required in such a unilateral contract. In the present case, ABZ company made a general offer to the public. Amita accepted this offer by fulfilling the conditions (using the smoke ball in the specified manner and contracting influenza). Therefore, a valid contract was formed, and Amita is entitled to the reward. In the present case, the suit is maintainable and Amita can claim the reward. Amita could recover the reward as a general offer can be accepted by anybody.