Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal