Pharamaceutical Society
of Great Britain vs boots cash chemist Limited
Court Court of appeal
decided case date 5 February 1953
Judges sitting Somervell LJ, Birkett LJ and Romer LJ
In Pharamaceutical Society of Great Britain versus boots cash
chemist. This is a famous case of contract which is based on the policy of
consideration and offer in the contract. The court in this case held that mere
price on the product in the showcase does not amount to be considered as an
offer but rather it is an invitation to treat which states the customer to buy
the product by giving an offer to the shopkeeper.
Facts[1]
The defendant is a
shopkeeper self-service shop in which the medicines and drugs of non perception
are kept in which many of them were listed in the poison list provided under
the for Pharmacy and Poison act 1933 were sold. The most of the Medical and Drugs
were kept in the open shelves so that the customer himself can select the
product and place it in shopping basket and take it to the reception where they
can pay the bill. The reception work was operated by a registered pharmacist.
In this case the claimant brought the proceeding against the defendant under
the Pharmacy and Poison act 1933 section 18 clause 1 which requires the
supervision of a register pharmacist for the sale of any item in the poison
list.
Issue
In this the issue
arises that whether the contract between the customer and the pharmacist arises
when the customer selected the product from the shelves as there was lack of
supervision by the defendant which was a breach of the pharmacy and poison act
1953 at that point.
Other question which was
put was that whether the contract for sale of product between the customer and
pharmacist arises when the item were paid off when there was no breach of
contract due to the presence of the pharmacist at the reception.
Are boots liable for
poisons without pharmacist supervision.
Held[2]
The court in
Pharamaceutical society v. Boot case held that defendant is not liable as there
is no breach of contract under the Poison and Pharmacy act 1933. The contract
was completed when the payment was made by the customer to the pharmacist. The
display of items on the shelves is not an offer it is an invitation to offer
which was accepted when the customer selected the item. The customer made an
offer to the pharmacist when is selected the item and gone to the reception to
pay the bill and it was made contract when the payment was accepted by the
pharmacist. The case and facts which support also states that the customer
after picking the item customer is not liable to pay the money he has been free
to return the item to the shelves before the payment was made by the customer.
Invitation to offer is open to everyone and when the item is selected and taken
to reception is an offer.
Contract
A contract is a
document which states the agreement between two or more persons of doing some
work in return of some valuable consideration.
Essentials of Contract
·
There must be two or more parties
·
There must be agreement between two parties
·
There must be consideration in view of
some work
·
Contract must be express or implied
A contract can be void,
voidable also depend upon the conditions of the agreement. A contract is void
when it is not enforceable by law. Contract is voidable means it is neither
enforceable nor void.
A contact is Void
·
When the agreement made is uncertain
·
When the agreement made is by minor
·
When the agreement is impossible to do
Difference between Offer And Invitation to
offer
Offer is made tosomeone
is a proposal while invitation to offer is to invite someone to make an offer or
proposal. In office there is a intention to enter into a proposal while In Invitation
ot a offer there can be intention or not it depends upon the negotiating terms
between the customer and the shopkeeper.
Analysis
In this case where the
claimant thought that the defendant is bound to enter into the contract due to
violation of the section under the pharmacy and poison act 1933. Also the
question aroses is that keeping the
drugs and medicine on the shelves amounts to the contract when paid the bill. In
this case the court took the decision that keeping the items on the shelves is
an invitation to offer which means that the shopkeeper is asking the customer
make an offer. When the customer will take the item into the shop basket and go
to reception compare the bill it will amount to the contract. Contract in this
case is valid and does not violate any of the rules under the contract and the
pharmacy and poison act 1933. This case tells us about the concept of
invitation to offer in the contract.
Conclusion
This case is basically
an English Contract which is formed on the basis of the contract basically
deals with the offer and vacation to offer this tells us when a customer sees
an item on the shop it is an invitation to offer where the customer has to go
to the shop and make an offer to the shopkeeper and If the shopkeeper accept
that offer it will turn into a contract in exchange of some money from the
customer the basis of the contracts form an essential part in the law it
depends upon the consideration in exchange of some work. In India the contract
comes under the Indian Contract Act which deals with the sale and purchase of
items and also the Partnership Act. There can be certain cases where no
invitation to offer is there that does not means there is no contract it will
also comes under the Indian Contract Act. Indian Contract Act is forms so that
after the work done no one denies to pay the amount to the worker. The
plaintiff can sue for the damages.
[1]Pharamaceutical
Society of Great Britain versusBoots cash chemist Limited, http://www.lawteacher.com
(last visited Oct 3,2021.)
[2]Pharamaceutical
Society of Great Britain versusBoots cash chemist Limited, http://www.iblogpleader.com
(last visited Oct 3,2021.)
0 Comments