Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.

Facts of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.

In 1951, Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. implemented a self-service system in one of their pharmacies. Previously, all medicines were stored behind the counter and customers would request assistance from a pharmacist to obtain the products they needed. Under the new system, products were displayed on open shelves, allowing customers to select items and place them in a shopping basket. The items were then taken to a cashier’s counter, where a registered pharmacist supervised the transaction and had the authority to approve or reject the sale.

On April 13, 1951, two women purchased products containing poison, which were regulated under section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected to this self-service method, arguing that it breached the Act because the sales were not supervised by a registered pharmacist at the point where the customers selected the items. The society contended that the display of goods constituted an offer, which the customers accepted by placing items in their baskets, thus completing the sale before reaching the cashier.

The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain filed a lawsuit against Boots, arguing that the sales were illegal under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, because the transactions were completed without proper supervision by a registered pharmacist.

Legal Issues

The issues raised in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. are:

1. Whether the display of drugs in the shop constituted an offer or an invitation to treat.
2. Whether Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. violated section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, by allowing customers to select items without the immediate supervision of a registered pharmacist.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain versus Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.’s Court Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court in favor of Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. The court ruled that the display of goods on the shelves was not an offer but an invitation to treat. The court clarified the following points in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.:

1. Invitation to Treat vs. Offer:
   • The display of goods on the shelves was considered an invitation to treat, meaning it was an invitation for customers to make an offer to buy.
   • When customers selected items and placed them in their baskets, they were making an offer to purchase those items.
   • The offer was accepted only when the customers brought the items to the cashier’s counter, where the transaction was completed under the supervision of a registered pharmacist.
2. Compliance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act:
   • The court held that the sale of regulated items was completed at the cashier’s counter, where the pharmacist had the opportunity to supervise the transaction and ensure compliance with the Act.
   • Since the pharmacist had the authority to approve or reject the sale at the cashier’s counter, there was no breach of section 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. Judgement

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. was delivered by Justice Somervell, with Lord Chief Justice Jenkins and Justice Birkett concurring. The court emphasised that:

• The self-service system introduced by Boots was a more efficient and organised way of conducting business, allowing customers to choose the items they wanted while ensuring that the final sale was supervised by a registered pharmacist.
• In traditional shop transactions, the customer has the right to select and offer to purchase items, which the shopkeeper can accept or reject at the point of payment.
• The court in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. found no difference between the self-service system and traditional shop transactions in terms of legal principles regarding the formation of contracts.

Justice Somervell highlighted that the new system was intended to facilitate customer choice and the contract for the sale of goods was completed only when the supervising pharmacist accepted the customer’s offer at the cashier’s counter.

Lord Chief Justice Jenkins reinforced that mere selection of items from the shelves did not constitute acceptance of an offer. The transaction was completed and the sale was made under the supervision of a registered pharmacist at the point of payment, in compliance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd. is a landmark case in contract law that clarified the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. 

The court’s ruling established that the display of goods in a self-service pharmacy constitutes an invitation to treat and the contract for the sale of goods is completed only when the supervising pharmacist accepts the customer’s offer at the point of payment. This case underscores the importance of proper supervision in the sale of regulated items and reinforces the principles of contract formation in a retail context.