Fisher v Bell - Case Summary

📄 Case Summary󠁝 󠀠󠁝ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

󠀠󠀠󠀠

The display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is only an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract. (Lord Justice Somervell, Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, 406)

UK Law Case Summary

Case Citation: Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Jurisdiction Tags: Contract Law, Offer and Acceptance, Invitation to Treat
Short Case Name: Fisher v Bell
Court/Level: Court of Appeal

Facts

The defendant was a shopkeeper who displayed a flick knife in his shop window with a price tag on it.

The claimant was a chief inspector of police who brought a prosecution against the defendant for offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

The magistrates convicted the defendant, who appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

The main legal issues in the case were:

Whether the display of the knife in the shop window amounted to an offer by the defendant, which was accepted by the public at large.

Whether the defendant had committed an offence under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court held that:

The display of the knife in the shop window was not an offer, but an invitation to treat, which invited the public to make an offer to buy the knife. Therefore, the defendant had not offered for sale any flick knife within the meaning of the Act.

Rationale

The court followed the precedent of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, which established that the display of goods for sale was not an offer but an invitation to treat.

The court applied the same reasoning to the advertisement of goods for sale, and found that the advertisement was merely a means of attracting customers to make offers to buy the goods.

The court also considered the practical difficulties of treating the advertisement as an offer, such as the possibility of multiple acceptances or the lack of stock.

The court also referred to the statutory interpretation of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and concluded that the phrase “offer for sale” in section 1 (1) meant a definite offer that could be accepted, not a mere invitation to treat.

Rule/Principle Established

The case affirmed the conventional approach to contract formation, which requires an offer and a corresponding acceptance before a contract can be established.

It also illustrated the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat, and the application of this distinction to the display of goods for sale in a shop window.

It also clarified the meaning and implication of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 for the sale of flick knives.

Introduction

The case relates to the legal concept of offer and acceptance, which are the main elements of contract formation.

An offer is a clear and definite statement of the terms on which one party is willing to be bound, while an acceptance is a clear and definite expression of agreement to those terms.

An offer can be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is a preliminary communication that invites the other party to make an offer or to negotiate.

Requirements

The requirements for offer and acceptance are as follows:

There must be an offer and a corresponding acceptance that mirror each other in terms of the essential terms of the contract.

The offer and acceptance must be communicated by words or conduct, and there must be a mutual understanding of the meaning and intention of the parties.

The offer and acceptance must be made with the intention to create legal relations, and not merely as a social or moral obligation.

The offer and acceptance must be supported by consideration, which is something of value given or promised by each party in exchange for the other party’s promise or performance.

Remedies

The remedies for breach of contract are as follows:

Damages, which are monetary compensation for the loss or injury caused by the breach. ㅤDamages can be classified into different types, such as expectation damages, reliance damages, restitutionary damages, nominal damages, and liquidated damages.

Specific performance, which is an equitable remedy that orders the breaching party to perform their contractual obligations as agreed. Specific performance is only granted when damages are inadequate or impracticable, and when the contract is for a unique or specific subject matter.

Injunction, which is another equitable remedy that orders the breaching party to refrain from doing something that would violate the contract or harm the other party’s rights. Injunctions can be classified into different types, such as prohibitory injunctions, mandatory injunctions, interim injunctions, and final injunctions.

Defences

The defences for offer and acceptance are as follows:

Lack of capacity, which means that one or both parties did not have the legal ability to enter into a contract, such as minors, mentally incapacitated persons, or intoxicated persons.

Lack of consent, which means that one or both parties did not freely and voluntarily agree to the contract, due to factors such as mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, or unconscionability.

Illegality, which means that the contract or its purpose is contrary to law, public policy, or morality, such as contracts involving fraud, crime, or immoral acts.

Information for Journalists

The case is relevant and important for journalists because it demonstrates the legal principles and issues involved in offer and acceptance, which is a common and essential aspect of many transactions and relationships in society.

The case also shows the role and function of the courts in interpreting and applying the law to the facts and circumstances of each case, and the possible outcomes and consequences of different judicial decisions.

The case also illustrates the impact and influence of statutory law and regulation on the formation and enforcement of contracts, such as the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which aimed to prevent the use of dangerous weapons.

Subsequent Applications

The case has been applied and followed by subsequent courts in similar cases involving offer and acceptance, and invitation to treat.

For example, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, the Court of Appeal applied Fisher v Bell and held that there was no contract between a shop and a customer, as the display of goods on the shelves was an invitation to treat and not an offer.

In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, the Divisional Court applied Fisher v Bell and held that there was no contract between an advertiser and a buyer, as the advertisement of a wild bird in a magazine was an invitation to treat and not an offer.

Cite This Summary:

You can cite this summary using the following formats:

APA: Copilot, M. (2024). Partridge v Crittenden - Case Summary. Retrieved from https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/partridge-v-crittenden

MLA: Copilot, Microsoft. “Partridge v Crittenden - Case Summary.” https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/partridge-v-crittenden, 2024, https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/partridge-v-crittenden.

Chicago: Copilot, Microsoft. “Partridge v Crittenden - Case Summary.”https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/partridge-v-crittenden, 2024, https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/partridge-v-crittenden.