Site icon swarb.co.uk

Fisher v Bell: QBD 10 Nov 1960

A shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife in his window for sale. A price was also displayed. He was charged with offering it for sale, an offence under the Act. The words ‘offer for sale’ were not defined in the Act, and therefore the magistrates construed them as under the general law of contract, in which case the shopkeeper had merely issued an invitation to treat.
Held: The display of the knife in the window was indeed only an invitation to treat, and the knife had not been offered for sale. In the Keating and Wiles cases the Acts in question allowed a conviction where an item was exposed for sale. That did not apply here. The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Justice Parker said: ‘It is perfectly clear that according to the ordinary law of contract the display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract.’

Parker LJ CJ, Ashworth Elwes JJ
[1961] 1 QB 394
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedWiles v Maddison 1943
It was proved that the defendant had the intention to commit an offence. Viscount Caldecote CJ said ‘A person might, for instance, be convicted of making an offer of an article at too high a price by putting it in his shop window to be sold at an . .
CitedMagor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporaion HL 1951
The Court of Appeal had tried to fill in the gaps in a statute where parliament had intended an effect.
Held: Rights to compensation are well capable of falling within the definition of ‘property of a company’ in the relevant provisions of the . .
DistinguishedKeating v Horwood QBD 1926
A baker’s van was doing its rounds, delivering bread which had already been ordered but the van also contained bread which could be bought as required. The bread was underweight The Order prohibited the offering or exposing for sale of food . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.185104

Exit mobile version