BOOTS CASH CHEMIST v PHARMACEUTICAL

SOCIETY

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists case summary is one of the
famous cases under contract law. The court clarified the difference between offer and
invitation to offer. The offeror makes an offer to do something or abstains from doing
something seeking assent of the offeree. An invitation to offer is an act of inviting other
parties to make an offer to form a contract.

FACTS

Boots Cash Chemists Ltd (defendants) introduced a new system of self-service in their
medical store. In this system, the chemists can now pick medicines from shelves and make
payments for the same at one of the cashier desks of the store. Before introducing this system,
they kept the medicines behind a counter and gave the customers the required medicine. The
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected to the new system of self-service. They
objected, claiming that S.18 (1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act mandated pharmacists
while on the sale of the medicine. The plaintiff alleged that the displaying of goods was an
offer and a customer, upon choosing a drug, had accepted this offer. As there is a lack of
supervision by the chemist, the society said it violated S.18 (1) of the act and they brought the
matter to the court. The trial court’s decision was in favor of the defendant, so the society
appealed to the higher court.

ISSUES
1. Is there acceptance of an offer at any stage in a self-service store?
2. Is the purchase of the drug compulsory when placed in their basket?
3. Is the chemist liable for drugs without the pharmacist’s supervision?

CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff’s contention
The plaintiff argued that S 18 (1) of the act mandates the supervision of a poison list of the
customer. When the customer picks up the displayed drug, the acceptance is made, and the
sale is executed, and there is no pharmacist to supervise the same. Therefore, the defendant is
liable for the same.
Defendant’s contention
The defendant argued that only when the customer pays at the cashier’s desk the sale is
executed, and a registered pharmacist is present to supervise the same.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The judges present to hear this case were Justice Somervell, Justice Birkett, and Justice
Romer. All three judges unanimously rejected the society’s appeal and upheld the decision of
the trial Court.
Judges gave the reasons:
The goods displayed in the medical store were an invitation to offer, and not an
offer. The customers make the offer when they take the medicine to the cashier.
The cashier has to make the acceptance and is under the authority of the shopkeeper.
Hence the contract is not made until the cashier accepts to sell.

DECISION
The court dismissed the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s appeal and the
court held that a registered pharmacist is present at the Boots Cash Chemists’ store when the
contract of sale is made under the Pharmacist and Poisons Act and is not violative of S. 18 (1)
of Pharmacist and poisons act, 1933.

CONCLUSION
This case is a landmark case under Contract law. It upholds the concept of invitation to
offer. Judges present to hear this case distinguished offer and an invitation to offer. The
clarification on this concept was very much needed. It contributed to the development of
contract law and common law systems. This case also signified the concepts relevant in the
modern era of window shopping and mega-marts as most of the stores display goods on
shelves with price tags and even discount offers. Therefore, clarity on the concept invitation
to offer is necessary to avert disputes.