Pharmaceutical Society v Boots [1953]
Share
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 is a significant decision in English contract law that clarified the concept of an offer and the nature of transactions in retail settings.
In this case, Boots Cash Chemists had introduced a new method for customers to purchase medicines by allowing them to pick drugs off the shelves and then pay for them at the till, rather than having a shop employee retrieve the requested items from behind a counter. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain argued that this practice violated the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which required the supervision of a pharmacist at the point where the sale was effected, especially for products listed on the Act's schedule of poisons.
The key legal question was whether the display of goods on the shelves constituted an offer, and if the act of putting items into the shopping basket by the customer was an acceptance, thereby completing the sale. The court, including the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, sided with Boots in holding that the display of goods was not an offer. Instead, it was the customer who made the offer to buy by placing the goods into the basket. The completion of the contract occurred at the cash desk when the pharmacist accepted the offer by accepting the payment.
The judgment emphasised the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. The court reasoned that the display of goods was an invitation to customers to make an offer, and the actual offer occurred when the customer took the items to the cash desk for payment. This approach upheld the traditional concept of an invitation to treat in contract law, where the display of goods is seen as an invitation for customers to make offers, and the contract is only formed upon acceptance by the seller.
The decision clarified that the sale was completed under the supervision of a pharmacist at the cash desk, satisfying the requirements of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. The court rejected the argument that placing an item in the shopping basket constituted a completed sale, highlighting the practical implications and common sense in understanding retail transactions.
In this case, Boots Cash Chemists had introduced a new method for customers to purchase medicines by allowing them to pick drugs off the shelves and then pay for them at the till, rather than having a shop employee retrieve the requested items from behind a counter. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain argued that this practice violated the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which required the supervision of a pharmacist at the point where the sale was effected, especially for products listed on the Act's schedule of poisons.
The key legal question was whether the display of goods on the shelves constituted an offer, and if the act of putting items into the shopping basket by the customer was an acceptance, thereby completing the sale. The court, including the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, sided with Boots in holding that the display of goods was not an offer. Instead, it was the customer who made the offer to buy by placing the goods into the basket. The completion of the contract occurred at the cash desk when the pharmacist accepted the offer by accepting the payment.
The judgment emphasised the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. The court reasoned that the display of goods was an invitation to customers to make an offer, and the actual offer occurred when the customer took the items to the cash desk for payment. This approach upheld the traditional concept of an invitation to treat in contract law, where the display of goods is seen as an invitation for customers to make offers, and the contract is only formed upon acceptance by the seller.
The decision clarified that the sale was completed under the supervision of a pharmacist at the cash desk, satisfying the requirements of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. The court rejected the argument that placing an item in the shopping basket constituted a completed sale, highlighting the practical implications and common sense in understanding retail transactions.
