Fisher v Bell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1960 |
| Date | 1960 |
| Year | 1960 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Crime - Offensive weapon - “Offers for sale” - “Flick knife” displayed in shop window with ticket bearing description and price - Whether an offence committed -
A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window a knife of the type commonly known as a “flick knife” with a ticket behind it bearing the words “Ejector knife — 4s.” An information was preferred against him by the police alleging that he had offered the knife for sale contrary to section 1 (1) of the
Held, that in the absence of any definition in the Act extending the meaning of “offer for sale,” that term must be given the meaning attributed to it in the ordinary law of contract, and as thereunder the display of goods in a shop window with a price ticket attached was merely an invitation to treat and not an offer for sale the acceptance of which constituted a contract, the justices had correctly concluded that no offence had been committed.
Per Lord Parker C.J. At first sight it seems absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent or given, but can apparently be displayed in shop windows; but even if this is a casus omissus it is not for the court to supply the omission.
CASE STATED by Bristol justices.
On December 14, 1959, an information was preferred by Chief Inspector George Fisher, of the Bristol Constabulary, against James Charles Bell, the defendant, alleging that the defendant, on October 26, 1959, at his premises in The Arcade, Broadmead, Bristol, unlawfully did offer for sale a knife which had a blade which opened automatically by hand pressure applied to a device attached to the handle of the knife (commonly referred to as a “flick knife”) contrary to section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959.
The justices heard the information on February 3, 1960, and found the following facts: The defendant was the occupier of a shop and premises situate at 15–16, The Arcade, Broadmead, at which premises he carried on business of a retail shopkeeper trading under the name of Bell's Music Shop. At 3.15 p.m. on October 26, 1959, Police Constable John Kingston saw displayed in the window of the shop amongst other articles a knife, behind which was a ticket upon which the words “Ejector knife — 4s.” were printed. The words referred to the knife in question. The police constable entered the shop, saw the defendant, and said he had reason to believe it was a flick knife displayed in the shop window. He asked if he might examine the knife. The defendant removed the knife from the window and said he had had other policemen in there about the knives. The constable examined the knife and pursuant to the invitation of the defendant took it away from the premises for examination by a superintendent of police. Later the same day he returned to the defendant's premises and informed him that in his opinion the knife was a flick knife. The defendant said “Why do manufacturers still bring them round for us to sell?” The constable informed the defendant that he would be reported for offering for sale a flick...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v R
...C.J.) ANDREWS and R. R. Voaden for the appellant; A. Smellie, Crown Counsel, for the Crown. Cases cited: (1) Fisher v. Bell, [1961] 1 Q.B. 394; [1960] 3 All E.R. 731; (1960), 125 J.P. 101; 104 Sol. Jo. 981, followed. (2) Phillips v. Dalziel, [1948] W.N. 429; [1948] 2 All E.R. 810; (1948), 6......
-
Gorstew Ltd and Another v Contractor-General
...or ordinary meaning of the words. 60 Counsel submitted this principle of interpretation was applied in the second case he relied on, Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394. In that case the issue concerned the meaning of the phrase: offer for sale or lends or gives to another person a. any knife whi......
-
A Local Authority v C
... ... ) ( 2016 ) 65 EHRR 5 , ECtHR (GC) EB v France (Application No 43546/02) ( 2008 ) 47 EHRR 21 ; [ 2008 ] 1 FLR 850 , ECtHR Fisher v Bell [ 1961 ] 1 QB 394 ; [ 1960 ] 3 WLR 919 ; [ 1960 ] 3 All ER 731 , DC Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30 ; [ 2004 ] ... ...
- R v MB
-
Non-regulated Contracts
...refusal of the tour operator to recognise the existence of a contract before the confirmation is despatched would not 4 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 and Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204. 5 Although on the facts of any particular case one must be careful to distinguish an offer to b......
-
Table of Cases
...Birmingham Cty Ct 5.119, 5.120–5.121 FirstGroup Plc v Paulley [2014] EWCA Civ 1573, [2015] 1 WLR 3384, [2015] RTR 22 8.70 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, [1960] 3 WLR 919, [1960] 3 All ER 731, 104 SJ 981, DC 1.138, 6.5 Flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum Lineas Aereas del Mediterraneo SA (Case C-......
-
Offer and Acceptance
...such commodities 24 See, for example, R v Bermuda Holdings Ltd (1970), 9 DLR (3d) 595 (BCSC) [ Bermuda Holdings ]; Fisher v Bell , [1961] 1 QB 394. 25 Bermuda Holdings , ibid . 26 P Winfield, “Some Aspects of Offer and Acceptance” (1939) 55 Law Q Rev 499 at 518. 27 [1953] 1 QB 401 (CA) [ B......
-
The Jamaica fair competition act 1993 and consumer protection from false and misleading advertising: a legal and economic analysis
...they indeed come from manufacturers, there is business sense in their being construed as invitations to treat. . " and Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, 399 per Lord Parker, CJ.: "It is clear that, according to the ordinary law of contract, the display of an article with a price on it in a sh......