Fisher vs bell case

study
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
17MBA1749 PROF. SULBHA SETIA
 Fact
 The defendant displayed a flick knife in the window of his shop next to a ticket bearing the words Ejector
knife – 4s, (i.e. four shillings).

 Under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (which was expanded in 1961 after this
case finished to deal with the gap in the law):

 (1) Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or lends or gives to any other person—
 (a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or
other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a “flick knife” or “flick gun”; or
 (b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or
the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button,
spring, lever, or other device, sometimes known as a “gravity knife”

 shall be guilty of an offence ... and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding...or to both such imprisonment and fine.[1]
 (2) The importation of any such knife as is described in the foregoing subsection is hereby prohibited.
ISSUE

 The issue was whether the display of the knife constituted an

offer for sale (in which case the defendant was guilty) or an
invitation to treat (in which case he was not).
HELD
 The court held that in accordance with the general principles of contract law, the
display of the knife was not an offer of sale but merely an invitation to treat, and
as such the defendant had not offered the knife for sale within the meaning of
s1(1) of the Act. Although it was acknowledged that in ordinary language a
layman might consider the knife to be offered for sale, in legal terms its position in
the window was inviting customers to offer to buy it.
 At first instance, the Prosecutor submitted that the Defendant has
displayed the knife and ticket in the window with the objective of
attracting a buyer, and that this constituted an offer of sale sufficient to
create a criminal liability under section 1(1) of the Act. Mr Obby
Simakampa submitted that this was not sufficient to constitute an offer.
The judges at first instancefound that displaying the knife was merely an
invitation to treat, not an offer, and thus no liability aros
 in the Divisional Court held there was no offence because there was no
"offer for sale". Although the display of a knife in a window might at first
appear to "lay people" to be an offer inviting people to buy it, and that it
would be "nonsense to say that [it] was not offering it for sale", whether an
item is offered for the purpose of the statute in question must be construed
in the context of the general law of the country. He stated that the general
law of the country clearly established that merely displaying an item
constituted an invitation to treat. He also read the statute on an exclusive
construction (inclusio unius est exclusio alterius), noting that
other legislation prohibiting the sale of weapons referred to "offering or
exposing for sale" (emphasis added). The lack of the words exposing for
sale in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 suggested that only a
true offer would be prohibited by the Act. The court dismissed the appeal.
Goods displayed in a shop are merely an invitation to treat or invitation to
trade.