Case of Law - Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots

Added on - 28 May 2020

  • 7


  • 1307


  • 5


  • 0


Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages
Running Head: Law1Law
Law2Answer 1Issue:Whether Yash is liable to sell displayed painting to the Poppy?Law:Offer is completely different from invitation to deal, but it is not easy to determine the differencebetween the two. Test in this scenario includes the intention of the parties under which Courtdetermines whether statement made by parties give result to an agreement or further negotiation.In this context leading case law isPharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots1.It must be noted that goods displayed by sellers in their shops are not considered as offer but it’sjust an invitation to treat. In this customer makes the offer to the seller to purchase the goods, andit completely depends on the discretion of parties whether they accept or reject the offer.Application:In the present case, painting displayed by the Yash in his shop cannot be considered as an offerand it was mere an invitation to deal because Yash does not intend to sell the painting but he justdisplayed it. In above stated case, Court of Appeal stated that Goods on shelf does not constituteany offer but it’s just an invitation to deal, and customers takes the goods and makes the offer.Therefore, Yash does not make any offer and there is no contract concluded between Yash andPoppy.Conclusion:1Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v BootsCourt of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953]EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427.
Law3In this case, offer is made by Poppy to purchase the painting and such offer is rejected by Yashand Yash is not liable to sell the painting.Answer 2Part AIssue:Whether Zaffa have any right to take action against the Earlham Bee Keepers’ School under tortlaw?Law:Breach of duty under tort law is considered at that time when defendant fails to fulfill hisobligation related to standard of care required by the law. For making the claim under tort law,claimant must establish:Defendant own duty of care towards the plaintiff.Defendant breach duty of care.Plaintiff suffered loss or injury.This can be understood through case lawDonoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 5622. In this case,Court establishes the modern law of negligence and also introduced neighbor test.Duty of care is considered as those situations and relationships under which law impose duty onperson to take care, and if any person fails in fulfilling this obligation and because of which2Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
You’re reading a preview

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Unlock This Document