CASE ANALYSIS OF PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT

BRITAIN V BOOTS CASH CHEMISTS

This article is written by Ms. Arushi Jain, who is pursuing B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from Jagran
Lakecity University, Bhopal (M.P.). This article will attempt an overview of the prominent
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V. Boots Cash Chemists Case and the concepts
intertwined within it.

CASE DETAILS

Full Name of the Case: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
(Southern) Ltd

Court: Court of Appeal of England and Wales

Judges: Somervell LJ, Birkett LJ and Romer LJ

Citation: EWCA Civ 6, [1953] 1 QB 401, [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427

Date decided: 5 February 1953

Country: United Kingdom

Areas of Law: Offer and Invitation to Offer

INTRODUCTION

The judgment in the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V. Boots Cash Chemists
impacted the English Law of Contracts to a large extant. This judgment became landmark due to
its curious and notable subject matter. Its decision was given by the Court of Appeal. The court
simplified the difference between an offer and an invitation to offer.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OFFER AND INVITATION TO OFFER

S. BASIS OF INVITATION TO
NO.
OFFER
COMPARISON OFFER
 When one person signifies his
An invitation to offer is not
willingness to do or abstain from
1. DEFINITION an offer, but an indication
doing something with a view to
of a person’s willingness to
obtain the assent of another
negotiate a contract.
person is known as an offer.

2 DEFINED IN Section 2(a) of the Indian Not defined in the Indian

Contract Act, 1872. Contract Act, 1872.
LEGAL An Invitation to Offer does
3. An offer gives rise to legal
not give rise to legal
CONSEQUENCE consequences.
consequences.
An Invitation to Offer is
4. PURPOSE An offer is made with the purpose
made with the purpose to
to get accepted.
get an offer.
5. WHEN ACCEPTED When an offer gets accepted, an An Invitation to Offer
agreement is made. becomes an offer.
An Invitation to Offer can
6. MADE TO An offer is made to a particular
be made to a group of
party to agreement.
individyals.

FACTS

The defendants- Boots Cash Chemists Ltd introduced a new system of self-service in their
medical store. In this system, the customers could pick medicines from shelves and make
payments for the same at one of the cashier desks of the store. Previously, when this system was
not introduced, the defendants kept the medicines behind the counter and gave customers the
required medicine.

The Plaintiff- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected the new system of self-service in
defendants’ medical store. The trial court’s decision was in favor of the defendant, so the
plaintiff appealed to the higher court.

ISSUES

1. Whether there was an acceptance to an offer at any stage in a self-service store?

2. Whether the chemist was liable for drugs without the pharmacist’s supervision?

ANALYSIS
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain sued Boots Cash Chemists. Following was argued by the
plaintiff:

1. That the self-service arrangement in the store of defendant violated S.18 (1)(a)(iii) of the
Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, which mandated that it was unlawful to sell certain drugs
unless the sale was affected under the supervision of a registered pharmacist

2. That the displaying of goods (drugs) in the shelf of defendant’s store was an offer and a
customer, when choose a drug, had accepted this offer. Hence, it could be inferred that sale of
such good was effected even before the involvement of pharmacist. Considering there would be
a binding contract at that stage, the pharmacist would not be having any authority to stop a
customer from purchasing the drugs.

DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS
Boots Cash Chemists, the defendant argued the following:

1. That when the customer pays for the drugs he chose from the shelves of the medical store then
only the sale is executed.

2. That a registered pharmacist would be present to supervise the customers whether to purchase
the said drugs chosen by the customers or not.

JUDGMENT
The Justice Somervell, Justice Birkett and Justice Romer heard the case unanimously dismissed
the appeal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Plaintiff). The Court held, the
following:

1. Mere display of goods on the shelves of the medical store of defendant does not amount an
offer to sell those goods. The offer is made by the customer when he asks the cashier to sell it,
now it depends upon the cashier to decide whether to accept the offer or reject it as under the
supervision of the pharmacist. Hence, S.18 (1) (a) (iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933
was not violated by the self-service arrangement in the medical store of defendant as contended
by plaintiff.
2. A registered pharmacist is present in order to supervise the customer whether to purchase the
particular drug or not.

CONCLUSION
The case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain V. Boots Cash Chemists case is a prominent
case in the English Contract Law. The judges distinguished offer and an invitation to offer. The
clarification on this concept was necessary as it signified the concepts relevant in the modern era
of window shopping and mega-marts as most of the stores display goods on shelves with price
tags and even discount offers. Hence, clarity on the concept of invitation to offer is necessary to
avert disputes.

REFRENCE

1. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1953/6.html

2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pharmaceutical_Society_of_GB_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_Ltd

3.https://casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/
Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v_Boots_Cash_Chemists_(Southern)_
Ltd.

4. https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/boots

5.https://www.johnwiley.com.au/highered/blaw/content110/case_summaries/
pharmaceutical_society_vs_boots.pdf