fisher v bell Flashcards
who are the parties and their representatives
Parties :
claimant/appelent - Fisher
Defendant/respondent - Bell
Representatives :
claimant : JA COX
defendant : P Chadd
what is a neutral citation - what is it in this case
Unique identifier that identifies the case by the year and the court it was held.
[1961] 1 QB 394.
what did the police officer charge the defendant with
Charged with offering for sale an offensive weapon (flick knife) on violation S1 of the restriction of offensive weapons act 1959.
what was the court of first instance
Magistrates court
what was the outcome of this case in court
Case was dismissed, D was seen as doing no wrong.
what were the legal decisions made by the QB
Whether displaying a flick knife in the shop window was “offer to sell” or “invitation to treat” and if he broke the law under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
describe the procedural history of the case
Fisher was charged with offering a flick knife for sale under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
The case was heard at the magistrates court, prosecution (fisher) appealed when the case was dismissed.
Fisher appealed the conviction and the case was taken to the Division Court of the Queens Bench , where it upheld the ruling given in the court of first instances.
what is a ratio decidendi
what is the ratio decidendi of this case
The legal reason for the decision
display of goods in a shop window with a price ticket attached was merely an ‘invitation to treat’ and not an ‘offer for sale’ , so could not be an offence under Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959
what statutory interpretation did the QB apply in fisher v bell.
define the approach.
extract sample of this happening.
Literal rule
^ gives words in a statute ordinary / natural meaning.
‘Parliament, when it desires to
enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary
meaning’
what is the obiter dicta
what is it in this case
cite from the case
statements regarding the law that doesn’t affect the outcome of the case, not binding but can be persuasive.
if parliament intended for a law to be taken a certain way - they will have written it into the legislation.
“Parliament, when it desires to
enlarge the ordinary meaning of those words, includes a definition section enlarging the ordinary
meaning”
what is the doctrine of precedent
was it used in this case
Process by which Judges follow previously decided cases.
Yes -
followed Keating v Horwood
followed Wiles v Maddison
In light of the decision, is it an offence to display a flick knife in a shop window for sale?
Support your answer with reference to an extract from the judgment.
no it is not.
“I am driven to the conclusion, though I confess reluctantly, that no offence
was here committed.”
Define the rule of interpretation the appellant submitted in support in their argument
how was it used
The appellant submitted an argument for the courts to apply the mischief rule to their ruling.
they argued that statute obviously meant to ban members of the public from being able to obtain offensive weapons- and even if not written the law should be applied this way.
court did not use this argument, stating if this was the way parliament meant they would have expressly stated this.
Define the rule of interpretation the respondent submitted in support in their argument
how was it used
The appellant submitted an argument for the courts to apply the literal rule to their ruling.
P Chad argued that Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 did not say anything about possession of a knife- even in a shop window. and if the act did mean to include this, parliament would have defined this- as they have done in previous legislation.
court did used this argument, stating if this was the way parliament meant they would have defined this. otherwise, had to follow the terms of contract law.
How do judges decide the outcome of cases
what did they decide the outcome for the cases
Judge listens to evidence and legal submissions of counsel, using judicial precedent
bc in applying principles of contract law, and the fact that the statute did not have a direct definition of what it meant, and previous case had agreed - they dismissed the appeal.
