Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
LORD PARKER CJ:
The sole question is whether the exhibition of that knife in the window with the ticket constituted an offer for sale within the statute. I confess that I think most lay people and, indeed, I myself when I first read the papers, would be inclined to the view that to say that if a knife was displayed in a window like that with a price attached to it was not offering it for sale was just nonsense. In ordinary language it is there inviting people to buy it, and it is for sale; but any statute must of course be looked at in the light of the general law of the country. Parliament in its wisdom in passing an Act must be taken to know the general law.
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. That is clearly the general law of the country. Not only is that so, but it is to be observed that in many statutes and orders which prohibit selling and offering for sale of goods it is very common when it is so desired to insert the words ‘offering or exposing for sale,’ ‘exposing for sale’ being clearly words which would cover the display of goods in a shop window. Not only that, but it appears that under several statutes - we have been referred in particular to the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 - Parliament, when it desires to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary meaning of ‘offer for sale’ to cover other matters including, be it observed, exposure of goods for sale with the price attached.
In those circumstances I am driven to the conclusion, though I confess reluctantly, that no offence was here committed. At first sight it sounds absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent, or given, but apparently they can be displayed in shop windows; but even if this - and I am by no means saying it is - is a casus omissus it is not for this court to supply the omission. I am mindful of the strong words of Lord Simonds in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation. In that case one of the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal had, in effect, said that the court having discovered the supposed intention of Parliament must proceed to fill in the gaps - what the Legislature has not written the court must write - and in answer to that contention Lord Simonds in his speech said: ‘It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.’
Approaching this matter apart from authority, I find it quite impossible to say that an exhibition of goods in a shop window is itself an offer for sale…Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion in this case that the justices were right, and this appeal must be dismissed.
Full text
The sole question is whether the exhibition of that knife in the window with the ticket constituted an offer for sale within the statute. I confess that I think most lay people and, indeed, I myself when I first read the papers, would be inclined to the view that to say that if a knife was displayed in a window like that with a price attached to it was not offering it for sale was just nonsense. In ordinary language it is there inviting people to buy it, and it is for sale; but any statute must of course be looked at in the light of the general law of the country. Parliament in its wisdom in passing an Act must be taken to know the general law.
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. That is clearly the general law of the country. Not only is that so, but it is to be observed that in many statutes and orders which prohibit selling and offering for sale of goods it is very common when it is so desired to insert the words ‘offering or exposing for sale,’ ‘exposing for sale’ being clearly words which would cover the display of goods in a shop window. Not only that, but it appears that under several statutes - we have been referred in particular to the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 - Parliament, when it desires to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary meaning of ‘offer for sale’ to cover other matters including, be it observed, exposure of goods for sale with the price attached.
In those circumstances I am driven to the conclusion, though I confess reluctantly, that no offence was here committed. At first sight it sounds absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent, or given, but apparently they can be displayed in shop windows; but even if this - and I am by no means saying it is - is a casus omissus it is not for this court to supply the omission. I am mindful of the strong words of Lord Simonds in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation. In that case one of the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal had, in effect, said that the court having discovered the supposed intention of Parliament must proceed to fill in the gaps - what the Legislature has not written the court must write - and in answer to that contention Lord Simonds in his speech said: ‘It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.’
Approaching this matter apart from authority, I find it quite impossible to say that an exhibition of goods in a shop window is itself an offer for sale. We were, however, referred to several cases, one of which is Keating v. Horwood, a decision of this court. There, a baker’s van was being driven on its rounds. There was bread in it that had been ordered and bread in it that was for sale, and it was found that that bread was under weight contrary to the Sale of Food Order, 1921. That order was an order of the sort to which I have referred already which prohibited the offering or exposing for sale. In giving his judgment, Lord Hewart C.J. said this: ‘The question is whether on the facts there were, (1) an offering, and (2) an exposure, for sale. In my opinion, there were both.’ Avory J. said: ‘I agree and have nothing to add.’ Shearman J., however, said: ‘I am of the same opinion. I am quite clear that this bread was exposed for sale, but have had some doubt whether it can be said to have been offered for sale until a particular loaf was tendered to a particular customer.’ There are three matters to observe on that case. The first is that the order plainly contained the words ‘expose for sale,’ and on any view there was an exposing for sale. Therefore the question whether there was an offer for sale was unnecessary for decision. Secondly, the principles of general contract law were never referred to, and thirdly, albeit all part of the second ground. the respondent was not represented and there was in fact no argument. I cannot take that as an authority for the proposition that the display here in a shop window was an offer for sale.
The other case to which I should refer is Wiles v. Maddison. I find it unnecessary to go through the facts of that case, which was a very different case and where all that was proved was an intention to commit an offence the next day, but in the course of his judgment Viscount Caldecote C.J. said: ‘A person might, for instance, be convicted of making an offer of an article of food at too high a price by putting it in his shop window to be sold at an excessive price, although there would be no evidence of anybody having passed the shop window or having seen the offer or the exposure of the article for sale at that price.’ Again, be it observed, that was a case where under the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1940, the words were ‘No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale or buy or offer to buy.’ Although the Lord Chief Justice does refer to the making of an offer by putting it in the shop window, before the sentence is closed he has in fact turned the phrase to one of exposing the article. I cannot get any assistance in favour of the prosecutor from that passage. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion in this case that the justices were right, and this appeal must be dismissed.
The sole question is whether the exhibition of that knife in the window with the ticket constituted an offer for sale within the statute. I confess that I think most lay people and, indeed, I myself when I first read the papers, would be inclined to the view that to say that if a knife was displayed in a window like that with a price attached to it was not offering it for sale was just nonsense. In ordinary language it is there inviting people to buy it, and it is for sale; but any statute must of course be looked at in the light of the general law of the country. Parliament in its wisdom in passing an Act must be taken to know the general law.
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. That is clearly the general law of the country. Not only is that so, but it is to be observed that in many statutes and orders which prohibit selling and offering for sale of goods it is very common when it is so desired to insert the words ‘offering or exposing for sale,’ ‘exposing for sale’ being clearly words which would cover the display of goods in a shop window. Not only that, but it appears that under several statutes - we have been referred in particular to the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 - Parliament, when it desires to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary meaning of ‘offer for sale’ to cover other matters including, be it observed, exposure of goods for sale with the price attached.
In those circumstances I am driven to the conclusion, though I confess reluctantly, that no offence was here committed. At first sight it sounds absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent, or given, but apparently they can be displayed in shop windows; but even if this - and I am by no means saying it is - is a casus omissus it is not for this court to supply the omission. I am mindful of the strong words of Lord Simonds in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation. In that case one of the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal had, in effect, said that the court having discovered the supposed intention of Parliament must proceed to fill in the gaps - what the Legislature has not written the court must write - and in answer to that contention Lord Simonds in his speech said: ‘It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.’
Approaching this matter apart from authority, I find it quite impossible to say that an exhibition of goods in a shop window is itself an offer for sale…Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion in this case that the justices were right, and this appeal must be dismissed.
Full text
The sole question is whether the exhibition of that knife in the window with the ticket constituted an offer for sale within the statute. I confess that I think most lay people and, indeed, I myself when I first read the papers, would be inclined to the view that to say that if a knife was displayed in a window like that with a price attached to it was not offering it for sale was just nonsense. In ordinary language it is there inviting people to buy it, and it is for sale; but any statute must of course be looked at in the light of the general law of the country. Parliament in its wisdom in passing an Act must be taken to know the general law.
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. That is clearly the general law of the country. Not only is that so, but it is to be observed that in many statutes and orders which prohibit selling and offering for sale of goods it is very common when it is so desired to insert the words ‘offering or exposing for sale,’ ‘exposing for sale’ being clearly words which would cover the display of goods in a shop window. Not only that, but it appears that under several statutes - we have been referred in particular to the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 - Parliament, when it desires to enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary meaning of ‘offer for sale’ to cover other matters including, be it observed, exposure of goods for sale with the price attached.
In those circumstances I am driven to the conclusion, though I confess reluctantly, that no offence was here committed. At first sight it sounds absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent, or given, but apparently they can be displayed in shop windows; but even if this - and I am by no means saying it is - is a casus omissus it is not for this court to supply the omission. I am mindful of the strong words of Lord Simonds in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation. In that case one of the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal had, in effect, said that the court having discovered the supposed intention of Parliament must proceed to fill in the gaps - what the Legislature has not written the court must write - and in answer to that contention Lord Simonds in his speech said: ‘It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.’
Approaching this matter apart from authority, I find it quite impossible to say that an exhibition of goods in a shop window is itself an offer for sale. We were, however, referred to several cases, one of which is Keating v. Horwood, a decision of this court. There, a baker’s van was being driven on its rounds. There was bread in it that had been ordered and bread in it that was for sale, and it was found that that bread was under weight contrary to the Sale of Food Order, 1921. That order was an order of the sort to which I have referred already which prohibited the offering or exposing for sale. In giving his judgment, Lord Hewart C.J. said this: ‘The question is whether on the facts there were, (1) an offering, and (2) an exposure, for sale. In my opinion, there were both.’ Avory J. said: ‘I agree and have nothing to add.’ Shearman J., however, said: ‘I am of the same opinion. I am quite clear that this bread was exposed for sale, but have had some doubt whether it can be said to have been offered for sale until a particular loaf was tendered to a particular customer.’ There are three matters to observe on that case. The first is that the order plainly contained the words ‘expose for sale,’ and on any view there was an exposing for sale. Therefore the question whether there was an offer for sale was unnecessary for decision. Secondly, the principles of general contract law were never referred to, and thirdly, albeit all part of the second ground. the respondent was not represented and there was in fact no argument. I cannot take that as an authority for the proposition that the display here in a shop window was an offer for sale.
The other case to which I should refer is Wiles v. Maddison. I find it unnecessary to go through the facts of that case, which was a very different case and where all that was proved was an intention to commit an offence the next day, but in the course of his judgment Viscount Caldecote C.J. said: ‘A person might, for instance, be convicted of making an offer of an article of food at too high a price by putting it in his shop window to be sold at an excessive price, although there would be no evidence of anybody having passed the shop window or having seen the offer or the exposure of the article for sale at that price.’ Again, be it observed, that was a case where under the Meat (Maximum Retail Prices) Order, 1940, the words were ‘No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale or buy or offer to buy.’ Although the Lord Chief Justice does refer to the making of an offer by putting it in the shop window, before the sentence is closed he has in fact turned the phrase to one of exposing the article. I cannot get any assistance in favour of the prosecutor from that passage. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion in this case that the justices were right, and this appeal must be dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment