Fisher v Bell
Goods displayed in a shop window with a price are an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale.
Facts
Mr Bell ran a shop in Bristol. He displayed a flick knife in his shop window, with a ticket next to it reading Ejector knife 4s. A police constable saw the knife and told Mr Bell he would be reported. Mr Bell was prosecuted under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which made it an offence to manufacture, sell, hire or offer for sale or hire any flick knife. The justices acquitted him, and the prosecutor appealed by way of case stated.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. Under the ordinary law of contract, displaying goods in a shop window with a price attached is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale. As Parliament had used the expression offer for sale without giving it a special meaning, it had to be understood in its contractual sense, and Mr Bell had not offered the knife for sale. Lord Parker CJ noted that Parliament must be taken to know the general law of contract when legislating. Parliament closed the gap in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961, which added the words exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale.
Related cases on offer and acceptance
- Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
- Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195
- Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34
- Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401
- Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
- Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
- Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
