The bold type big-printed letters are designed so inorder to catch and appeal

Download 388.87 Kb.
Size388.87 Kb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   15

<#/>In common Law, (English Law) a familiar rule is that, <&/>punct one who accepts an invitation to do business is not <-/there by> accepting an offer so as to constitute a contract between them. <#/>It is an invitee who makes the offer if any.

<#/>Here it comes true in common law that the display of goods in the shop with a price-marked <&/>grammar is just an invitation to treat; it does not constitute any offer, rather it is an invitee who makes an offer while <+_article> invitor is free to accept or reject it.

<#/>This was made clear in <-_the> Winfield's article on offer and acceptance <-/where by> he revealed the effect of making a shop a place of compulsory sale. <#/>He said;

"If a display of such goods were an offer; then the shopkeeper might be forced to contract with his worst enemy, his greatest trade rivals, a reeling drunkard or a ragged and verminous tramp. <#/>That would be a result Scarcely likely to be countenanced by the law".

<#/>He further argued that even in <-/business like> <-/Inn keeping> common carries where the business lied under the duty to render services to any one <&/>grammar/sense; there is a free selection of an invitor to select a customer; He explained:

"An Innkeeper is not bound to accommodate a common prostitute, A railway company is not bound to find transport for one who is not in a fit condition to travel".

<#/>Putting much emphasis on this rule Winfield added that even in a ticket on a dock in a jeweler's shop would be marked "For sale for the first to come", constitutes only an invitation to treat and that the <-/first comer> must be the one <-_to><+_of> whom the jeweller approves. <#/>So here it is not enough to come first, one needs also to be accepted by the jeweller.

<#/>Therefore the mentioned quotation tried to make a clear distinction <-_of><+_between> an offer and <+_article> invitation to treat <-/where by> the final resort <&/>lexeme under the common law is that invitation to treat does not constitute any contract since it does not express final willingness by the one who invites to be bound by the terms. <#/>The invitor merely proposes certain terms on which he is willing to negotiate; that is why the shop becomes a place for bargaining.

<#/>Even in a self-service shop the display of the article or goods with price-marked <-/lebels> upon them does not constitute an offer since it is the customer who has got the choice of picking the goods be wants and go to the cashier's desk <&/>grammar and give <&/>grammar his offer which may be accepted or not on any <-_ground><+_grounds>. <#/>For example the shopkeeper or cashier may say that he is not going <+_to> allow another customer to have an article because he has already promised his best friend to take it.

<#/>By picking articles in a self-service shop there is <-_no><+_not> any effect on sale until the buyer's offer to buy is accepted.

<#/>The question is more clarified in the case of <+_article> <&/>orth pharmaceutical society of Great Britain V. Boots cash chemists (southern) Ltd, where <-_by> the shop operated <&/>grammar self-service charged with selling drugs which were listed under a statute as to be sold under the supervision of registered pharmacist.

<#/>The Learned Judge (Lord Goddard C.J.) had this to say:-

"...It would be wrong to say that the shopkeeper is making an offer to sell every article in the shop to any person who might come in and that person can insist on buying any article by saying; <+_I> accept your offer.”

<#/>In common Law there is a realization of <+_article> freedom of an Individual to deal with his own properties; hence <-_the><+_a> man is free to display his own property as much as he can, and on top of that he is also free to put this expression of invitation in his own manner as well as accepting the offer from the person he approves and at his desirable price.

<#/>Another case to support Winfield's view is Fisher V. Bell where a shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife in his shop window with a price ticket behind it. <#/>He was then charged with offering for sale an article contrary to section 1(i) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 as it was then [now repealed].

<#/>The court held that the shopkeeper was not liable because the display of the knife in the window was not an offer for sale.

<#/>In common Law this is a general rule as it seems to protect both sellers and customers. <#/>As Lord Goddard once said:

"If a display in self-service shop were an offer, the undesirable result would follow that the buyer would be bound to buy as soon as he picked up the goods to examine them".

Share with your friends:
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   15

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page