Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Fisher v Bell
|
The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. Under the restriction of offensive weapons Act, its a criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale.
The defendant was not guilty since he HAD NOT made an offer. As goods on display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. The customer can make an offer and the seller can accept of reject. The court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation. |
|
|
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Ltd v Boots
|
Boots introduced the then new self service system into their shops whereby customers would pick up goods from the shelf put them in their basket and then take them to the cash till to pay. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist.
No offence has been committed. The medicine were merely an invitation to treat. A customer takes the goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist. |
|
|
Partridge v Crittenden
|
The defendant placed an advert in a classified section of a magazine offering some bramble finches for sale. S.6 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer such birds for sale. He was charged and convicted of the offence and appealed against his conviction.
Held: The defendant's conviction was quashed. The advert was an invitation to treat not an offer. The literal rule of statutory interpretation was applied. |
|
|
Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co
|
A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:-
£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball... £1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter." Mrs Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used them according to the directions and caught flu. She sought to claim the stated £100 reward. The defendant raised the following arguments to demonstrate the advertisement was a mere invitation to treat rather than an offer: 1. The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer. 2. It is not possible to make an offer to the world. 3. There was no notification of acceptance. 4. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time limit as to catching the flu. 5. There was no consideration provided since the 'offer' did not specify that the user of the balls must have purchased them. Held: The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Carlill was entitled to the reward as the advert constituted an offer of a unilateral contract which she had accepted by performing the conditions stated in the offer. The court rejected all the arguments put forward by the defendants for the following reasons: 1. The statement referring to the deposit of £1,000 demonstrated intent and therefore it was not a mere sales puff. 2. It is quite possible to make an offer to the world. 3. In unilateral contracts there is no requirement that the offeree communicates an intention to accept, since acceptance is through full performance. 4. Whilst there may be some ambiguity in the wording this was capable of being resolved by applying a reasonable time limit or confining it to only those who caught flu whilst still using the balls. 5. The defendants would have value in people using the balls even if they had not been purchased by them directly. |
|
|
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
|
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
|
