BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
BUSINESS LAW
|
Question
[CLICK ON ANY CHOICE TO KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER]
|
|
|
Partridge v Crittenden
|
|
|
Grainger & Sons v Gough
|
|
|
Fisher v Bell
|
|
|
Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
|
Detailed explanation-1: -The Court ruled that the display was an invitation to treat, and therefore not an offer for sale. This meant that the defendant was not in violation of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which prohibits the offering of flick knives for sale.
Detailed explanation-2: -Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 is an English contract 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, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller, and not an offer.
Detailed explanation-3: -Similarly, a display of clothes in a shop, of goods in an auction, and even advertisements screaming “Offer! 50% Off on All Shirts!” is actually an invitation to treat, and not an offer.
Detailed explanation-4: -The Divisional Court’s decision in Fisher v Bell The statute penalised “any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person” a flick knife. Mr Bell had done all in his power to make a sale.
Detailed explanation-5: -General Offer: Carlill v. In this case, a company carried out advertisements about their product, carbolic smoke balls, that claimed that any person who took the smoke balls in the prescribed manner (i.e., three times daily for two weeks) will not catch influenza.