## Facts

- The defendant, a shopkeeper, displayed a flick knife with a price tag in his shop window.
- The prosecution alleged that this act contravened the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, s.1, which prohibits “offering for sale” certain offensive weapons.
- The key issue was whether the display constituted an “offer for sale” under the meaning of the statute.
- The prosecution argued that displaying the knife with a price was an offer to sell in breach of the Act.
- The defence asserted that such a display is merely an invitation to treat, not an offer.
- The Queen’s Bench was tasked with determining whether the shopkeeper’s conduct amounted to a statutory offence.

## Issues

1. Whether the display of a flick knife with a price tag in a shop window constitutes an “offer for sale” under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
2. Whether, in contract law, the display of goods in a shop amounts to an offer or an invitation to treat.
3. How established principles of statutory interpretation and contract law should influence the construction of “offer for sale” within the Act.

## Decision

- The court held that the display of goods with a price tag in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale.
- It was found that the shopkeeper’s actions did not amount to a breach of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
- The term “offer for sale” was interpreted according to its established meaning in contract law, not ordinary language.
- The court dismissed the conviction, determining that Parliament is presumed to legislate with reference to existing legal terminology.

## Legal Principles

- The display of goods with a price tag in a shop is generally considered an invitation to treat, not an offer, under English contract law.
- An offer is a definite promise to be bound on particular terms, while an invitation to treat invites others to make offers.
- Statutory terms are presumed to bear their accepted legal meanings unless expressly defined otherwise in legislation.
- The ruling confirms that contract formation relies on an objective expression of intent rather than subjective intentions.
- Reference was made to authorities such as Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemists and Partridge v Crittenden, confirming that advertisements and displays are usually invitations to treat.

## Conclusion

The court in Fisher v Bell established that the display of goods with a price in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell. Consequently, the shopkeeper was not liable under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, as the actions did not constitute an "offer for sale." This decision clarified an important distinction in contract law and confirmed the need for statutory interpretation in line with established legal principles.


Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394