## Facts

- Boots Cash Chemists operated a self-service retail store where customers selected products from shelves and proceeded to a cashier for payment.
- The Pharmaceutical Society claimed Boots contravened the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which required certain drugs to be sold only under the supervision of a registered pharmacist.
- The claimant argued the display of goods amounted to an offer, and customer selection constituted acceptance, finalizing the sale before pharmacist supervision.
- Boots contended that the display was merely an invitation to treat, with the contract only concluded at the till where a pharmacist was present.
- The dispute centered on when the contract of sale was formed in a self-service environment and the legal implications for compliance with statutory requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether the display of goods in a self-service store constitutes an offer or an invitation to treat.
2. At what point is a contract of sale formed in a self-service retail setting, particularly concerning statutory requirements for pharmacist supervision.
3. What legal principles apply to distinguishing between an offer and an invitation to treat in commercial transactions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the display of goods was an invitation to treat, not an offer.
- The customer’s act of bringing items to the cashier constituted an offer to purchase, which Boots could accept or reject at the till.
- The contract was formed at the point of payment, where pharmacist supervision was present, satisfying statutory requirements.
- The ruling clarified that customers are not bound when selecting items from the shelves and retain the right to change their minds before purchase.
- The distinction between offers and invitations to treat was contrasted with other cases, such as _Chapelton v Barry UDC_ and _Partridge v Crittenden_, reinforcing the flexible and context-dependent nature of contract formation.

## Legal Principles

- A display of goods in a retail context is an invitation to treat, allowing retailers discretion in accepting or rejecting offers to purchase.
- Contract formation is determined objectively, focusing on outward actions and statements rather than subjective intent.
- Acceptance must constitute a clear and unequivocal agreement to an offer; silence does not amount to acceptance.
- The court prioritizes legal certainty and commercial practicality, ensuring freedom for both parties prior to contract completion.
- Related doctrines, such as the “snapping up” rule, demonstrate that absolute objectivity in contract formation is tempered by fairness and context.

## Conclusion

The decision in Pharmaceutical Society v Boots established that displays of goods are invitations to treat, not offers, with contract formation occurring at the cashier. This principle offers clarity and fairness in commercial transactions, ensuring statutory compliance and safeguarding the rights of both retailers and consumers in self-service retail environments.


Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401