The case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 is one of the most influential decisions in English contract law. It deals with the fundamental concepts of offer, acceptance, and invitation to treat, clarifying at what stage a binding contract is formed in a retail environment. The judgement provided legal certainty for self-service shopping, which was still a novel practice at the time, and continues to guide courts and businesses in understanding the legal nature of shop displays.
Background of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
In the early 1950s, Boots Cash Chemists introduced a new self-service system in its stores. Previously, customers would request medicines from behind the counter, and the shop assistant or pharmacist would hand them over directly. However, under the new system, customers could pick up medicines, including those listed under the Poisons List of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, from open shelves, place them into their shopping basket, and proceed to the cashier desk for payment. Importantly, a registered pharmacist was stationed at the till to supervise sales.
The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the professional body regulating pharmacists, objected to this practice. They argued that under section 18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, a registered pharmacist must supervise the sale of poisons at the point where “the sale is effected”. Their concern was that if the sale was legally completed when a customer placed an item in their basket, it would mean no pharmacist had supervised that crucial stage.
Legal Issue
The central issue before the court in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd was:
At what point is a contract of sale formed in a self-service shop?
- If the contract was completed when the customer selected and placed the item into their basket, then Boots was in breach of the Act, as there was no pharmacist present at that moment.
- If the contract was only completed at the till, when payment was made under pharmacist supervision, then Boots had complied with the law.
Thus, the case turned on whether the display of goods with price tags amounted to a legally binding offer, or merely an invitation to treat.
Arguments
Pharmaceutical Society’s Argument
- The Society contended that the display of goods on the shelves constituted an offer.
- When a customer placed the medicine into their basket, it amounted to acceptance.
- At this stage, the contract would already be complete, and since no pharmacist had supervised this step, Boots would be in breach of section 18(1) of the 1933 Act.
Boots’ Argument
- Boots argued that the display of goods was not an offer, but merely an invitation to treat.
- The act of placing goods in the basket was only an offer by the customer to purchase.
- The contract was only formed when the cashier, under the supervision of a pharmacist, accepted the offer by taking payment.
- Thus, there was no breach of the Act.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd Judgement
Both the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) and the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Boots.
The Court of Appeal held that the display of goods in a shop is not an offer but an invitation to treat. The customer makes the offer when presenting the goods at the cashier desk, and the shop accepts by processing the payment.
Therefore, the sale was completed at the till, under the supervision of the pharmacist, ensuring compliance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933.
Judicial Reasoning in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
Somervell LJ
Somervell LJ explained that self-service shopping was simply a more organised way of conducting transactions already familiar in bookshops and other retail outlets. The goods on display were not offers, but an invitation to the customer to make an offer at the till.
He pointed out that if the Pharmaceutical Society’s argument were accepted, customers would be bound by their choice the moment they placed goods in the basket. They would have no right to change their mind or substitute items before reaching the cashier. This would be absurd and contrary to common shopping practices.
Somervell LJ emphasised that a contract is only completed when the shopkeeper (or their agent) accepts the customer’s offer at the point of sale.
Birkett LJ
Birkett LJ highlighted the practical reality of the situation. He stressed that applying common sense, the act of picking an item off a shelf could not be regarded as completing the sale. Instead, the critical point was when money passed at the cashier’s desk, under the pharmacist’s supervision.
He supported the Lord Chief Justice’s view that in ordinary shops, it is not correct to say that every item on display constitutes an offer. Rather, the customer’s action of selecting an item represents a potential offer, which the shopkeeper is free to accept or reject.
Lord Chief Justice (Goddard CJ)
The Lord Chief Justice reiterated that a shopkeeper cannot be said to make an offer to sell every article in the shop to anyone who picks it up. Instead, the arrangement is that customers may select goods, but the shop retains the freedom to refuse the sale until the final stage at the till.
Conclusion
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd remains a landmark case in English contract law. It firmly established the principle that the display of goods is an invitation to treat, not an offer, and that the sale is completed only when the shop accepts the customer’s offer at the point of payment.
The case not only clarified the law on offer and acceptance but also enabled the growth of modern self-service retail, shaping the way shopping is conducted today. For law students and practitioners alike, it is an essential authority on the formation of contracts and continues to be cited as a cornerstone of legal education and practice.