Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boot Cash Chemist (Southern) LTD. (1952) 2AIIERRep.

Citation	(1953) 1 QB 401, (1953) 1 ALL ER 492, (1953) 2 WLR 427
Date of Judgement	5 February 1953
Court	Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Petitioner	Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
Respondent	Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd.
Bench	Somervell LJ, Birket LJ and Romer LJ
Referred	Offer and Invitation to Treat, Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933.

Facts

The case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boot Cash Chemist is of the United Kingdom and is famous for the decision on the nature of Offer which was decided by the court of England and Wales.

In this case, Boots Cash Chemist Ltd. (Defendant of the Case) initiates a new method to purchase medicines (drugs) from their store. The new method was that the people can buy medicine by themselves, i.e., concept of self service in the store as they can pick there medicine as per the requirements. Further the shopper can do the payment at the counter of the store. Before this system all medicine was given by the pharmacist as all the medicines were kept behind the counter. 

The appellant (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain) object on the grounds that the newly system introduced by the defendant that it is violating Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933. 

Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act states that it is mandatory for the Pharmacist to be present at the time of selling medicine or product that is listed under the Act’s Schedule of Poison. The society further argued that the goods that have been displayed is an offer to the customer which is made by the defendant and when a customer chooses some drugs or medicine, then the customer has accepted his offer. The pharmacist has not supervised the sale and thus has violated the principles of Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933.

The Trial Court gives the decision in the favour of Defendant – Boots Cash Chemist Ltd., so the Plaintiff appeals in the Higher Court.

Issues

• Whether the display of drugs and medicine is an offer or not?
• Whether the new method violates Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933?

Argument of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff argued that the act and system of Boots Cash Chemist Ltd. Selling the drug and medicine is violating Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933 as it is compulsory for the pharmacist to be present at the time of sale or supervise the sale.

In the self-service store of Boots Cash Chemist Ltd., when the customer chooses their medicines and drugs from the display, the acceptance is made by the customer of that product and the sale is executed without the supervision of the pharmacist. So the defendant is liable.

Argument of the Defendant

Their argument was that when the customer pay at the cash counter then only the sale is executed and a registered pharmacist supervise them at that time

Judgement

The court dismissed the appeal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and held unanimously that the store has a registered pharmacist and is present when the contract of sale is made. So the Boots Cash Chemist is not violating Section 18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poison Act, 1933.

Also the self-serviced system of Boots Cash Chemist in displaying goods (drugs and medicine) is not an offer and it’s just an invitation to treat. 

LJ Somervell makes an analogy of a bookseller that the customer is still browsing for the books while putting items in the basket and hence there is no acceptance until completed at the checkout. As a result a shopkeeper’s items display cannot be an offer and must be invitation to treat. 

The Court further states that there is no sale unless and until the buyer’s offer to buy is accepted by the shopkeeper and the money is accepted and that all takes place under the supervision of shopkeeper (pharmacist).

So the appeal is dismissed.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/

http://student.manupatra.com/

This article is written by Akshat Sharma of Department of Law, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.