Fisher v. Bell
Rule established
Literal Rule applied strictly. Display of goods in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not an "offer for sale." Shopkeeper acquitted of offering a flick-knife for sale.
Facts
- Shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife in his shop window with a price tag
- Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959: offence to "offer for sale" certain weapons
- Prosecution argued the display constituted offering for sale
Issue
- Whether displaying goods in a shop window amounts to "offering for sale" within the statute.
Held
- Literal Rule applied: "offer for sale" is a term with established legal meaning
- In contract law, display is merely an invitation to treat
- Shopkeeper acquitted
Ratio Decidendi
Where Parliament uses a term that has a settled legal meaning, the court will apply that technical meaning literally, even if it produces an outcome Parliament may not have intended.
How to use it in an exam
- Classic Literal Rule case producing a technical acquittal
- Shows why Parliament must draft precisely
- Contrast with Smith v. Hughes (1960) where Mischief Rule was applied
- Key line: "In Fisher v. Bell (1961), the court applied the Literal Rule and held that displaying a flick-knife in a window is an invitation to treat, not an 'offer for sale,' since that term has a settled legal meaning."
Source
Source: [1961] 1 QB 394
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.