RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED LAW OF CONTRACTS AND FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE

B.A. LL. B (HONS) DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-2021

Submitted by: submitted to:

MITALI ARYAN DR. PRADIP KUMAR
DAS
CUSB2013125070 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
2nd SEMESTER DEPARTMENT OF LAW
B.A. LL.B (HONS) SCHOOL OF LAW AND
SESSION: 2020-2025 GOVERNANCE

acknowledgement
1
I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to our faculty of Law of
Contract Dr. Pradip Kumar Das for providing me the chance to work on this
particular assignment on the case law “Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
v. Boot Cash Chemist Ltd.”

I am obliged to thank our faculty of the respective subject to provide me the

necessary support required while making this assignment and mentoring
throughout this assignment and the whole journey of completing the assignment
was quite interesting that I was completely engrossed and dived deeper to seek
more information related to the topic.

I would not have been able to complete this assignment without the help of my
friends, colleagues and my family members, so I would like to express my
gratitude and thank them as well.

Thank you!!

Mitali Aryan
Cusb2013125070
2nd semester
B.a. Ll.b(hons.)

2
 Declaration
I hereby declare that the work reported and the research done in the process of
making the assignment on the case law “Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain v. Boot Cash Chemists Ltd.” in Good faith and it is an authentic record
of my work carried under the guidance of our faculty Dr Pradip Kumar Das. I
have not submitted this assignment elsewhere and I take responsibility of my
work, which has been carried out while completing the assignment.

Mitali Aryan
2nd Semester
B.A.LL. B (Hons)
Central University of South Bihar

3
 INTRODUCTIOn
In an invitation to offer, no specific party has intention to enter into a contract. The seller may
enter into a contract with anybody from the public who makes the best offer to him. So, the
essence of an invitation to offer is that the offer is actually made by the seller.

For instance, a shopkeeper selling antique statues in his store would prefer the buyer who
would offer him a higher price for his goods. Similarly, a display of clothes in a shop for sale
and even advertisements screaming, “Offer! 50% off on all Shirts!” is actually an invitation
to offer, and not an offer. Therefore, an invitation to offer ‘evolves’ into a contract in a
different manner than an offer. Initially, it is an invitation to offer, say by display of goods
and their prices. When a person makes an offer that is good enough and the seller ‘accepts’ it,
it becomes a contract. Unlike offer, which is made by the seller to the buyer.

Pharmaceuticals Society of Great Britain v. Boot Cash Chemists Ltd. is one of the famous
cases of Contract Law. In this case, the court clarified the distinction between an offer and an
invitation to offer. The court held that the products displayed with price tags in stores are not
offered to sell, but an invitation to offer for purchase. This case lays down important concepts
and is a good precedent in Contract Law.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENT
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………..02
2. DECLARATION………………………………………………………03
3. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..04
4. FACTS OF THE CASE………………………………………………..06
5. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL PROVISION……………………….…07
6. REASONS…………………………………………………………..…07
7. OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT…………………………………08
8. DECISION OF THE COURT…………………………………...…08-09
9. RATIO…………………………………………………………………09
10.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE………………………..…09-10
11.LIST OF OTHER RELATED JUDGMENTS………………….…..10-11
12.BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………...12

5
 PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN V.
BOOT CASH CHEMISTS (SOUTHERN) LTD.1

Dated: 5th Febuarary,1953

Honourable Judges: Somervell, Birkett and Romer
Country: United Kingdom
Area of law: Offer, Invitation to offer

FACTS:
The defendants, Boots Cash Chemists Ltd., introduced self – service system in
their store. Customers could now pick up medicines from shelves and make
payment at one of the cashier desks in the store. Before this system, all the
medicines were kept behind a counter and customers were handed only those
medicines which they requested. The plaintiff, Pharmaceutical Society of Great
Britain objected to the self - service system, as according to them, it was
violative of Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.

ISSUE:

1) At what stage of a purchase in a self –service store is there an acceptance of an offer?

2) Whether there was an infringement of Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons
Act, 1933?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

It was argued by the plaintiff that Section 18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933 provides that
sale of any medicine or drug on the Poison list should be supervised by a registered pharmacist.
Display of medicines with price tags is an offer made by a shopkeeper, and when a customer picks up
a medicine for purchase, it is an acceptance. So, when the Sale is executed, no pharmacist is there to

supervise. Therefore, the defendants have violated the above-mentioned section .

1
[1953] 1QB 401

6
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The defendant argued that the sale is executed only at a cashier’s desk, where the customer
pays for the medicines. Also, there is a registered pharmacist to supervise the sale at the
cashier desk.

ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL PROVISION:

i) At what stage of a purchase in a self-service store is there an acceptance of offer?

Acceptance is when one pays money to the cashier.
ii) Is the customer bound to purchase once they place an item in the basket?
iii) Are Boots liable for poisons without a pharmacist’s supervision?

REASONS:
Somervell , while writing for the court , makes an analogy to a bookseller; the customer is
still browsing while putting the items in their basket and there has been no acceptance until
completed at the checkout. As a result, a shopkeeper’s display cannot be an offer and must be
an invitation to offer. The logical conclusion of the plaintiff’s argument would be that once a
customer put an item in their basket they would be committed to purchase and would not be
able to change their mind.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT:

The court observed that display of medicines with price tags is not an offer made by the
shopkeeper to sell the medicines, instead it is an invitation to offer for the customers to come
at the cashier’s desk and make an offer to purchase the medicines picked up by them from the
shelves. It is up to the shopkeepers to accept offer and sell the medicine.2

The court also observed that the contract of sale is concluded when the payment is made by
the customer to purchase the medicine picked up by him/her from the shelves. Without the
payment for the medicine selected or picked up from the shelves for the purchase by the
customer, the customer has no rights over the medicines. Rights are transferred only after the
payment is made, and the medicine can be used by the customer only after making the

2
Dr. R K Bangia’s Contracts – I, 7th Edition Allahabad Law Agency

7
payment and purchasing the medicine picked up from the shelves. The court also observed
that the customer could return or put that medicine back to the shelf after picking up and
before making the payment.

The court further made an observation that when the contract of sale of medicine was
concluded at the cashier desk, there was a registered pharmacist present in order to supervise
the sale of medicines listed under the Poison List, then the Boots Cash Chemists Ltd’ s self-
service system did not breach Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, as the
contract of sale was complete only after the payment was made by the customer, and a
registered pharmacist supervises the sale when payment is made at the cashier’s desk.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

The court dismissed the appeal made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Further,
the court held that a registered pharmacist was present at the Boot Cash Chemists Ltd. store
when the contract of sale of medicines under the Poisons List was concluded, so the Boots
Cash Chemists Ltd. had not breached the Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act,
1953.

RATIO:

 Goods on a display are invitation and not an offer; the customer makes an offer when
they take goods to the register.
 The cashier is under the shopkeeper’s authority to make an acceptance; hence a
contract has not been made until the cashier accepts the purchase.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

8
The case stated is a landmark one when it comes to ‘offer’ and ‘invitation to offer’. The
question before the court of appeal was that whether the display of drugs in a medical shop
was an offer or invitation to treat. The court had also to decide as to at what time the contract
of sale of drugs took place and whether the defendants infringed Section 18 (1) of the
Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. The court while rejecting the contentions and dismissing
the appeal filed by Pharmaceutical Society, clarified the position of law relating to offer and
invitation to offer. Invitation to offer precedes the offer and cannot be construed as an offer
because its purpose is merely to advertise the goods in the shop and to invite the customers
therefrom. While an offer is made with the view to obtain the assent of the person to whom it
is made. The distinction between an offer and an invitation to offer depends primarily on the
intention with which it was made. The shopkeeper does not intend to sell each of articles at
display. The customer can choose the desired item and take it to the cash counter for making
the final payment and thus purchasing it. It is the customer, who makes an offer to the
shopkeeper for purchasing the same. The shopkeeper may either accept or reject the offer.

On the first issue that whether the display of drugs in a medical shop was an offer or
invitation to treat. The court aptly rejected the contention that when each of the two
customers picked up the package containing poison from a particular shelf and put it in their
basket provided by the shopkeeper, the sale took place then and there, instead it upheld the
contrary view and clarified that the sale did not take place until the customer who placed the
product into her basket and thereby came to make the payment at the cashier’s desk.
Displaying the goods in the shop is merely an invitation to offer and accepting the invitation
does not result in a binding contract.

On the second issue that whether the defendants infringed Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and
Poisons Act, 1933, the court accurately pointed out that since the sale took place at the
cashier’s desk in the presence of a registered pharmacist, there was no violation of Section 18
(1) of the Act. The appeal was rightly dismissed.

This decision is of great importance as the court adhered with the existing Contract Law and
upheld the concept of invitation to offer.

LIST OF OTHER JUDGMENT RELATED TO THIS CASE:

9
  Fisher v. Bell3: It is an English contract law case concerning the requirements of offer
and acceptance in the formation of a contract. The case established that where goods
are displayed in a shop together with the price label, such displays are treated as
invitation to offer by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the
customer presents item of purchase at the cashier’s desk making the payment for the
same. Acceptance occurs at the point when the cashier takes the payment.

 Timothy v. Simpson,4: In this case it was held that a display of goods at a fixed price
in a self – service store is an invitation to offer and not an offer.

 Chapelton v. Barry Urban District Council5: In this case Chapelton wished to hire a
deck chair and approached a pile of chairs owned by Barry Urban District Council. A
notice adjacent to the chairs detailed the cost of hire and advised customers to obtain
tickets and retain them for inspection. Chapelton purchased the tickets and placed
them in his pocket. On one side of the tickets, the council purported to exclude
liability for any liability for any accidents caused by hiring the chairs. Chapelton sat
down and the canvas gave way. He sought damages from BUDC and was held they
had effectively excluded liability. Chapelton appealed which was successful and the
decision was given in his favour.

 Mac Pherson v. Appana,6: With reference to an Indian case of Macpherson v Appana

where a statement of the lowest price is merely a statement where the vendor may sell
is not an offer but invitation to treat. In this case, A offered to buy B’s lodge for Rs.
6000, adding that he could pay more, if reasonably. B’s agent replied, “won’t accept
less than rs. 10000”. This was accepted by A but B refused to perform the contract on
the ground that he did not make any offer or counter offer but was merely inviting
offer. The court using Harvey v. Facey as the precedent, the Lordship held that the
mere statement of the lowest price at which the vendor would sell contains no implied
contract to sell at that price. The merely an invitation to offer.

3
[1961] 1 QB 394
4
[1834] 6 C &P 499
5
[1940] 1 KB 532
6
AIR 1951 SC 184

10
11
 Bibliography

I would not have been able to complete this assignment without the help
of the following references:
BOOKS :
Dr. R K Bangia’s Contracts – I, 7 th Edition, Reprint in 2020, Allahabad
Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana)

WEBSITES:
https://www.casemine.com/judgment/uk/5a8ff87860d07f57ec039
https://casebrief.fandom.com

12