Fisher v Bell (Invitations to treat)

Contrary to the expectations of most people in the community, when an item is placed in a shop window with a price tag attached, it is not in fact offered for sale! The display of an item is merely an invitation to treat - it invites customers to offer to buy the item for the given price.

[@alphaabassbundu579]

You need to construct more csses under you voice.
I can't go with a day without listening to your csses on youtube.

[@Inimitable]

I'm surprised this is not used in place of the Boots case, especially when the Boots case is from 1953 and the Fisher v Bell case is from 1961. Are you able to explain why the preference seems to cite Boots, Anthony?

[@AnthsLawSchool]

Hi Peter, both of them get taught. I think the distinction is that in this case the items were in a shop window to attract passers-by, whereas in Boots the presumption seems to be that the buyer is already in the Chemists. They both make virtually the same point though, and in submissions before a court I'd be citing them both.

[@Inimitable]

@@AnthsLawSchool - Thank you.