Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 06:59:27 UTC
Defendant advertised an illegal flick-knife in his shop window but couldn’t be sued for an “offer to sell” an offensive weapon contrary to a statute, because it was merely an invitation to treat.
Lord Parker
Conceded that this seemed absurd but said that it was a problem for parliament to correct.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (PSGB) v Boots Cash Chemist
In a self-service system, the sale of poisons introduces a unique dynamic, allowing customers to independently choose items directly from shelves. The self-service setup places responsibility on bot...
Partridge v Crittenden
When it comes to advertising and circulars, unless it is evident from the language used that they are meant as an offer, they can only be interpreted as an invitation to treat rather than an offer fo...
R v White
Defendant stabbed Victim during an argument over Victim’s dog. The judge directed on self-defence but didn’t mention the “unexpected anguish” qualification from Lord Morris in Palmer. CA dismissed th...
Wandsworth LBC v Winder
Plaintiff, a local authority, under statutory powers, raised rents which Defendant, a tenant, refused to pay. Defendant sought to counterclaim that the rent increase was Wednesbury unreasonable. Plai...
Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium
Plaintiff was a bookmaker who claimed that Defendant had breached their statutory duty of giving him a convenient place from which to trade and claimed lost earnings for breach of statutory duty. HL...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.