Fisher v Bell [1961]
Share
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is a significant English contract law decision that addresses the concepts of offer and acceptance, particularly in the context of items displayed in a shop window. The case established that goods displayed in a shop do not constitute an offer to sell but are instead an invitation to treat. This distinction is crucial because it determines at what point a binding contract is formed between the buyer and the seller. According to the ruling, the offer is made when the customer takes the item to the cashier, and acceptance occurs when the cashier processes the payment.
The facts of the case involve the defendant, who displayed a flick knife in his shop window with a price tag that read "Ejector knife – 4s" (four shillings). Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, it was an offence to manufacture, sell, or offer for sale certain prohibited weapons, including flick knives. The claimant, a police chief inspector, argued that by displaying the knife in the shop window, the defendant was offering it for sale, thereby breaching the Act. However, the legal question centred on whether displaying the knife actually constituted an "offer for sale" under the law.
At the first instance in the Bristol Justices court, the prosecutor argued that the display of the knife amounted to an offer to sell, which would attract criminal liability under the Act. The defence countered that the display was merely an invitation to treat. The judges agreed with the defence, ruling that the display did not amount to an offer. The prosecutor then appealed the decision.
In the Divisional Court, Lord Parker CJ upheld the initial ruling, concluding that no offence had been committed because there was no offer for sale in the legal sense. He explained that, while a layperson might interpret the display as an offer, the law regards such displays as invitations to treat. Lord Parker noted that in contract law, an invitation to treat is simply an indication that the seller is willing to negotiate, leaving it up to the customer to make an offer by selecting the item and taking it to the cashier. The judgment also highlighted that the wording of the 1959 Act was crucial; the absence of the phrase "exposing for sale" in the statute suggested that only a genuine offer, not a mere display, would be prohibited.
The judgment was significant for several reasons. It clarified the legal distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat, reinforcing principles long established in contract law. Additionally, the decision prompted a quick legislative response. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 was passed to amend the 1959 Act, adding the words "exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire", closing the loophole that the case had exposed. Today, under the revised law, a shopkeeper displaying a similar weapon would be liable for prosecution.
This case is often discussed alongside other cases like Partridge v Crittenden and British Car Auctions v Wright, where similar issues arose due to statutory wording. Together, these cases highlight the importance of precise legislative drafting and continue to be relevant in contract law for understanding how offers and invitations to treat are distinguished.
The facts of the case involve the defendant, who displayed a flick knife in his shop window with a price tag that read "Ejector knife – 4s" (four shillings). Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, it was an offence to manufacture, sell, or offer for sale certain prohibited weapons, including flick knives. The claimant, a police chief inspector, argued that by displaying the knife in the shop window, the defendant was offering it for sale, thereby breaching the Act. However, the legal question centred on whether displaying the knife actually constituted an "offer for sale" under the law.
At the first instance in the Bristol Justices court, the prosecutor argued that the display of the knife amounted to an offer to sell, which would attract criminal liability under the Act. The defence countered that the display was merely an invitation to treat. The judges agreed with the defence, ruling that the display did not amount to an offer. The prosecutor then appealed the decision.
In the Divisional Court, Lord Parker CJ upheld the initial ruling, concluding that no offence had been committed because there was no offer for sale in the legal sense. He explained that, while a layperson might interpret the display as an offer, the law regards such displays as invitations to treat. Lord Parker noted that in contract law, an invitation to treat is simply an indication that the seller is willing to negotiate, leaving it up to the customer to make an offer by selecting the item and taking it to the cashier. The judgment also highlighted that the wording of the 1959 Act was crucial; the absence of the phrase "exposing for sale" in the statute suggested that only a genuine offer, not a mere display, would be prohibited.
The judgment was significant for several reasons. It clarified the legal distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat, reinforcing principles long established in contract law. Additionally, the decision prompted a quick legislative response. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 was passed to amend the 1959 Act, adding the words "exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire", closing the loophole that the case had exposed. Today, under the revised law, a shopkeeper displaying a similar weapon would be liable for prosecution.
This case is often discussed alongside other cases like Partridge v Crittenden and British Car Auctions v Wright, where similar issues arose due to statutory wording. Together, these cases highlight the importance of precise legislative drafting and continue to be relevant in contract law for understanding how offers and invitations to treat are distinguished.
