Murtaza Ali

2025-09-0076
Prof: Faiza Ismail

Quiz # 01 (ILR)
PHAEMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN v. C. A.
BOOTS CASH CHEMISTS (SOUTHERN) LD.

Applying FIRAC Method:

1. Facts:-
Boots Cash Chemists Ltd renovates their pharmacy into a
new style of pharmacy consist of two departments and they
adopted the “self-service” system. The defendant came into the
self-service shop in which non-prescription drugs and medicines
were displayed in open shelves that customers can easily reached
to them, select the item they want to buy, put it in his shopping
basket and them bring it to the counter where he will supposed to
pay for it. Many of the drugs and medicine were listed in the
Poison list under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933 of Sec
17(1). On 13 April, 1951 two customers come into the shop, pick
the drug they want to buy and put it in shopping basket and
reached the counter to pay the bill for it. The Pharmaceutical
Society, under S.18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933,
claims that the presence of the pharmacist is mandatory when the
sale of product is take place which was mentioned on the list of
Poisons. When the customer brings the item to the counter to do
payment then the transaction involving the sale of drug was
supervised by pharmacist. The person from Pharmaceutical society
saw the transaction and bought the case to the court under the
Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933A.
Defendant in this case is Boots Chemists while Plaintiff is
Pharmaceutical society.

2. Issue:-
a. Was the display of goods like drugs and poisons by Boots a
proposal to clients or a challenge to treat?

b. At what phase of a buy in a self-serve store is there an

acceptance of offer?

c. Is the client bound to a buy once they place a thing in their

shopping basket?

d. Are Boots responsible for harms without a drug specialist's

management?

3. Rule:-
By section 17 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, “the
property in goods passes when it is intended to pass, and here
there is clearly an intention that the sale shall take place at the
spot where the customer takes the article from the shelf.”

Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, sec 18, it shall not lawful for
a person to sell any poison included in Part 1 of the Poison list
unless
(i) He is an authorized seller of poison.
(ii) The sale is affected on premise duly registered during
part 1 of the act.
(iii) The sale is affected under supervision of pharmacist.

Analysis:-
When the customer collect the item and
put them in his basket it is not an complete offer until when the
 customer reached counter pay for his item and complete
checkout. Meanwhile, the items that displayed in the selves of
Pharmaceutical Company is not an offer, it is just invitation to
the offer like in Partridge v Crittenden and Fisher v Bell
case where the items displayed on the shops are just invitation
to treat not considered in an offer.
This case basically demonstrates the difference between
offer and invitation to offer. Both are different things like offer
is when both the parties agree to do something e.g, A fellow
student ask to bring it his laptop and he will return it tomorrow
and the other student agree on it, than it is count in an offer
because both are agree but invitation of offer are like when a
shopkeeper displays anything in their shop, any customer visit
the shop than it is not necessary for the customer to buy
anything and pay for it until he want. If he take something and
want to buy than he will pay for it than it otherwise if he is not
willing to buy something he will not. It is invitation of offer. If
he buy from shop then it is offer because both shopkeeper and
customer are agree for it.

4. Conclusion:-
On 5 th Feb, 1953 , the court decide that
displaying the items on the selves does not means a
valid consideration or an offer. It is just invitation of the
offer and it depend on the customer that he/ she will
buy it or not to make a offer. Otherwise it is still
invitation to the treat.