Fisher V Bell

"Fisher v. Bell" [Case citation| [1961] 1 Q.B. 394, [1960] 3 All E.R. 731] is an English 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 a price label, such display is
treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer. The offer is instead made when the
customer presents the item to the cashier together with payment. Acceptance occurs at the point
the cashier takes payment. The judgment was delivered by Lord Parker C.J., with Ashworth and
Elwes, JJ. concurring.

Material facts

The Defendant displayed a flick knife in the window of his shop next to a ticket bearing the
words "Ejector knife – 4s." Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, section 1(1),
it was illegal to manufacture, sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, or lend to any other person,
amongst other things, any knife "which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure
applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife". On 14
December 1959, the Claimant, a chief inspector of the Bristol Constabulary of the English police
force, brought forward information against the Defendant alleging the Defendant has contravened
section 1(1) by offering the flick knife for sale.

Submissions

At first instance, the Prosecutor submitted that the Defendant has displayed the knife and ticket in
the window with the object of attracting a buyer, and that this constituted an offer of sale sufficient
to create a criminal liability under section 1(1) of the Act. The Defendant submitted that this was
not sufficient to constitute an offer. The judges at first instance found that displaying the knife was
merely an invitation to treat, not an offer, and thus no liability arose. The Prosecutor appealed the
judges' decision.

Judgment (on appeal)

The court upheld the first instance decision. Lord Parker, C.J., delivering the judgment, noted
that, although the display of a knife in a window might at first appear to "lay people" to be an offer
inviting people to buy it, and that it would be "nonsense to say that [it] was not offering it for sale",
whether an item is offered for the purpose of thestatute in question must be construed in the
context of the general law of the country. He stated that the general law of the country clearly
established that merely displaying an item constituted an invitation to treat. He also read the
statute on an exclusive construction ("inclusio unius exclusio alterius est"), noting that
other legislationprohibiting the sale of weapons referred to "offering "or exposing for sale"
(emphasis added). The lack of the words "exposing for sale" in the Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959 suggested that only a true offer would be prohibited by the Act. The court
dismissed the appeal.