Which case emphasizes that acceptance can be inferred through actions?

The case that emphasizes that acceptance can be inferred through actions is indeed the case involving Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. In this landmark case, the court established that a party's conduct can demonstrate acceptance of an offer even if no explicit communication of acceptance is made.

The facts involved a company that advertised a smoke ball claiming their product could prevent influenza. They promised to pay a reward to anyone who used the product and still contracted the virus. When a customer used the smoke ball as directed and then caught influenza, the court held that the customer's actions—using the product—constituted acceptance of the offer, thereby creating a binding contract. The advertisement was clear in its terms, and the customer's reliance on it demonstrated acceptance without the need for formal communication.

This principle highlights the notion that acceptance in a contract does not always require a verbal or written confirmation; it can stem from the conduct of the parties involved. In contrast to other cases listed, Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. uniquely established this legal precedent regarding acceptance through action.