Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the distinction between offer and invitation to offer. 

Facts 

• In 1951, Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. introduced a self-service system in one of their pharmacies, replacing the traditional behind-the-counter service. 
• Under the new system, products were displayed on open shelves for customers to select and place in shopping baskets. 
• Customers took their chosen items to a cashier's counter, where a registered pharmacist supervised and approved or rejected the sale. 
• On April 13, 1951, two women purchased products containing poison, regulated under section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. 
• The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected to the self-service method, claiming it breached the Act as sales were not supervised by a pharmacist at the point of item selection. 
• The Society argued that displaying products constituted an offer, and customers accepted the offer by placing items in their baskets, completing the sale before reaching the cashier. 
• The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain filed a lawsuit against Boots, alleging the transactions violated the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, due to the lack of supervision at the selection stage. 
• The lower Court in this case ruled in favour of Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. 
• The matter was hence before the Court of Appeal.  

Issues Involved  

• Whether the display of drugs constituted ‘offer’ or ‘invitation to offer’? 
• Whether the act of the pharmacy violated Section 18 (1) (iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933? 

Observation  

• The Court of Appeal held the following with regard to ‘offer’ and ‘invitation to offer’: 
  • Goods displayed on shelves are an invitation to treat, not an offer. 
  • Customers make an offer by placing items in their basket. 
  • The offer is accepted when the cashier processes the sale under the supervision of a registered pharmacist. 
• With regards to compliance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933 the Court held that: 
  • The sale of regulated items occurs at the cashier’s counter under the supervision of a pharmacist. 
  • This ensures compliance with section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Act.
• The Court in this case held that there was no difference between self service system and traditional shop transactions with regards to formation of contracts. 
• The Court highlighted that the new system was only to facilitate the customer in making a choice and the pharmacist only accepted the offer of the customer at the counter. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment which laid down a very important distinction between offer and invitation to offer. 
• When a customer is obtaining an item by self service method, it would amount to invitation to offer and when the customer takes the item to the cashier this would constitute offer.