📄 Case Summary ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ
The display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is only an invitation to treat. ㅤIt is in no sense an offer for sale, the acceptance of which constitutes a contract. (Lord Justice Somervell, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, 406)
UK Law Case Summary
- Case Citation: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401
- Jurisdiction Tags: Contract Law, Offer and Acceptance, Invitation to Treat
- Short Case Name: Pharmaceutical Society v Boots
- Court/Level: Court of Appeal
Contents:
- Facts
- Issues
- Holding
- Rationale
- Rule/Principle Established
- Introduction
- Requirements
- Remedies
- Defences
- Information for Journalists
- Subsequent Applications
- Further Reading
- Cite This Summary
Facts
The defendant operated a self-service shop where customers could select non-prescription drugs and medicines from the shelves and pay for them at the till.
Some of these products were listed in the Poisons List under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which required the supervision of a registered pharmacist for their sale.
The claimant, a professional body representing pharmacists, sued the defendant for breaching the Act, arguing that the contract of sale was formed when the customer picked up the product from the shelf, without the supervision of a pharmacist.
The defendant contended that the contract was formed at the till, where a pharmacist was present. The trial judge ruled in favour of the defendant, and the claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
The main legal issues in the case were:
- Whether the display of goods on the shelves amounted to an offer by the defendant, which was accepted by the customer when they placed the product in their basket.
- Whether the contract of sale was completed at the point of selection or at the point of payment.
- Whether the defendant complied with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933.
Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge. The court held that:
- The display of goods on the shelves was not an offer, but an invitation to treat, which invited the customer to make an offer to buy the product.
- The offer was made by the customer when they presented the product at the till, and the acceptance was made by the cashier when they took the payment.
- Hence, the contract of sale was completed at the till, under the supervision of a pharmacist, and the defendant did not breach the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933.
Rationale
The court followed the conventional approach of looking for an offer and a corresponding acceptance to establish a contract.
The court rejected the argument that the display of goods was an offer, as that would lead to absurd consequences, such as the customer being bound to buy the product once they picked it up, or the shop being liable for breach of contract if they ran out of stock.
The court also noted that the customer was free to change their mind and return the product to the shelf before paying for it.
The court found that the proper construction was that the display of goods was an invitation to treat, and the customer made an offer to buy the product at the till, which was accepted by the cashier when they took the payment.
The court also looked at the meaning of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, and decided that the words “the sale is effected” in section 18 (1) meant the time when the sale contract was finished, which was at the cashier.
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 self-service shop.
It also clarified the meaning and implication of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 for the sale of non-prescription drugs and medicines.
Introduction
A marketable title is a key requirement for a contract of sale of land. It means a title that is free from any defect or doubt that would affect its value or expose the purchaser to litigation.
A purchaser who discovers that the vendor’s title is not marketable can refuse to complete the contract, or seek rescission or damages.
A vendor who sues for specific performance of the contract must prove that he or she has a marketable title, or that the purchaser has waived any objection to the title.
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. ㅤSpecific 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. ㅤInjunctions 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 Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which aimed to protect public health and safety.
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 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, the Court of Appeal applied Pharmaceutical Society v Boots and held that there was no contract between a shopkeeper and a customer, as the display of a flick knife in the shop window was an invitation to treat and not an offer.
In Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204, the Divisional Court applied Pharmaceutical Society v Boots 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
Further Reading
If you want to learn more about the case of Pharmaceutical Society v Boots and the Poisons Act 1933
- The full text of the case: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
- The full text of the ordinance: Poisons Act 1933
Cite This Summary:
You can cite this summary using the following formats:
- APA: Copilot, M. (2024). Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd - Case Summary. Retrieved from https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd
- MLA: Copilot, Microsoft. “Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd - Case Summary.” https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd, 2024, https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd.
- Chicago: Copilot, Microsoft. “Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd - Case Summary.”https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd, 2024. https://artiwplus.com/blog/cases/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd.