Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394

📌 Facts

The respondent was a shopkeeper of a retail shop in Bristol whereas the appellant was a chief inspector of police. A police constable walked past the shop and saw the display of a flick knife with a price attached to it. The police constable examined the knife and took it away for examination by a superintendent of police.

The police constable later returned to inform the respondent that the knife was a “flick knife” and that the respondent would be reported for offering for sale a flick knife. The appellant contended that the display of flick knife was in violation of Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 ("Act") because by displaying the flick knife in the shop window, the respondent was offering the flick knife for sale, which was prohibited under the Act.

📌 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).

📌 Decision

The court held that the display of the knife was not an offer 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. The defendant was therefore not guilty of the offence with which he had been charged.

📌 Analysis

It is well established in contract law that the display of an item in a shop window is an invitation to potential customers to make an offer, rather than an offer in itself.

Interestingly, the loophole in the Act was later closed in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961, which inserted the words "exposes or has in possession for the purpose of sale or hire".