Scribd
Upload
102 views

Fisher V Bell Case Note

Chief Inspector Fisher alleged that shop owner Bell had unlawfully offered a flick knife for sale in violation of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The Magistrates' Court dismissed the case, finding that displaying the knife with a price tag was an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell. On appeal, the High Court agreed, as the Act did not define "offer for sale" and under contract law a display is merely an invitation to treat. While this allowed potentially dangerous weapons to be displayed, Lord Parker found he must interpret the statute literally, and it was up to Parliament to clarify the language if it wished to achieve a different result.

Uploaded by

Caolón Whitmarsh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views

Fisher V Bell Case Note

Chief Inspector Fisher alleged that shop owner Bell had unlawfully offered a flick knife for sale in violation of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The Magistrates' Court dismissed the case, finding that displaying the knife with a price tag was an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell. On appeal, the High Court agreed, as the Act did not define "offer for sale" and under contract law a display is merely an invitation to treat. While this allowed potentially dangerous weapons to be displayed, Lord Parker found he must interpret the statute literally, and it was up to Parliament to clarify the language if it wished to achieve a different result.

Uploaded by

Caolón Whitmarsh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Facts and History

In this case, Chief Inspector of Police, George Fisher (appellant) alleged that shop owner,

James Charles Bell (respondent) had unlawfully offered a flick knife for sale, in breach of

Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. 1 2

On October 26th, 1959, at 3.15pm, police constable, John Kingston, noticed the knife in

question displayed in the respondent’s shop window with a ticket which read “Ejector

knife4s.”3 With reason to believe that the article was an illegal “flick knife”, he entered the

shop and asked to examine the knife. The respondent remarked that other policemen had

previously asked about the knives.4 After examining the knife, the police constable took it

away for further examination by a superintendent of police. Later that same day, he

returned and informed the respondent that the knife was a flick knife. The respondent said,

“Why do manufacturers still bring them around for us to sell?” 5 The constable informed the

respondent that he would be reported for illegally offering the knife for sale under the

Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act.

The case was initially tried in the Magistrates’ Court in Bristol on February 3 rd, 1960. The

appellant argued that the respondent had offered the knife for sale within the meaning of

the 1959 Act by displaying the knife in the shop window with an accompanying tag in the

intention of attracting the attention of a buyer and selling it to them. The respondent

argued that he had “at no time offered the knife for sale” within the meaning of the 1959
1
Fisher v Bell (1961) P.394
2
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 Section 1(1)
3
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 395
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
Act. The justices found that since the Act lacked a definition of the phrase “offer for sale” 6, it

must be interpreted in the way it is meant in the ordinary law of contract. Having the knife

on display in the shop window is merely an invitation to treat, and the court accordingly

dismissed the case. The appellant then appealed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High

Court of England and Wales.

Critical Analysis of High Court judgment

In his judgement, Lord Parker highlights the importance of the application of the literal rule

of statutory interpretation with respect to Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive

Weapons Acts. The Act reads “offer for sale”, and since it did not provide a definition of

what this entailed, the court is obliged to interpret this in the meaning outlined in the

ordinary principles of the law of contract. Accordingly, the display of the knife was not an

offer for sale, rather it was merely an invitation to treat. 7

Lord Parker acknowledged that the application of this rule does not always result in a fair

outcome and can lead to an absurd decision that at first glance may seem ridiculous. He

explains in his judgement that “[I]n ordinary language, [the knife] is there inviting people to

buy it, and it is for sale; but any statute must of course be looked at in the light of the

general law of the country”.8 In legal terms, the knife being displayed for sale is simply

inviting customers to offer to buy it. It is not in itself an offer for sale, and the 1959 Act must

6
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 396
7
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 399
8
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 399
be construed in accordance with this legal meaning. If the Act intended to prohibit a

situation that involved the display of an item for sale, it must include the words “exposing

for sale” or an alternative definition that enlarges the ordinary meaning of the term “offer

for sale.” Lord Parker exemplified this being employed in practice when he referred to the

Prices of Goods Act 19399 and the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act 194110.

Moreover, in his judgement, Lord Parker distinguished the present case from two of the

cases cited, Keating v Horwood (1926) and Wiles v Maddison (1943), both in which the

relevant Acts included the term “expose for sale”. In the latter, the Lord Chief Justice

explains that the display of an article in a shop window is an exposure of that article for

sale.11

I find it hard to disagree with Lord Parker’s judgement in this case of apparent casus

omissus, since parliament is assumed to know the laws of the country and since they have

previously worded legislation in a way that covers such situations, the court could have

extended the meaning of the term “offer for sale”. In the case of interpreting the supposed

intention of parliament, it is not the duty of the courts to write what legislature has not

written as this proves to be a usurpation of the legislative function. 12 13

Even if it were parliaments true intentions to prevent possession of such knives in this case,

one would argue that surely, they could have foreseen the potential consequence of

wording the act in a way that seems to overlook the situation of the exposure of these
9
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 399
10
Ibid
11
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 401
12
Fisher v Bell (1961) P. 400
13
St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1952) P. 189, 191
knives in a shop window. Nonetheless, it is not the responsibility of the court to interpret

this and therefore Lord Parker employed literal rule of interpretation and reluctantly

dismissed the appeal, as did the other justices in agreement.

Conclusion

This case stands out as one of significance, exemplifying the importance of the fundamental

principles of the ordinary law. I find Lord Parker’s judgement to be thorough and perceptive,

demonstrating admirable recognition and consideration for how the ordinary language of a

layman would interpret the facts of the case and come to a rational conclusion that an

offense was committed. His judgment ultimately highlights the loopholes that can exist

within the laws that Parliament writes and that it is the duty of the courts to interpret the

actual legal meaning through employing the literal rule of statutory interpretation.

Although, it is to be noted that this can sometimes result in seemingly absurd rulings, which

can be observed in this case.

Bibliography
Primary Sources

Fisher v Bell (1961) QB 394

Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, s.1(1)

Secondary Sources

St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1952)

Elliott C, and Quinn F, Elliott & Quinn's Contract Law (12th edn, Pearson 2019)

'FISHER V BELL [1961] 1 QB 394 - Judicateme' (Judicateme.com, 2022)


<https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Fisher-v.-Bell_JudicateMe.pdf>
accessed 9 March 2022

You might also like