September 2025 ACCA Exams

How was your exam? Comments & Instant poll >>

20% off ACCA & CIMA Books

OpenTuition recommends the new interactive BPP books for December 2025 exams.
Get your discount code >>

Fisher v Bell (1961)

This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by MikeLittle.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

Author
Posts
January 24, 2018 at 4:32 pm #432688
humai
Participant
- Topics: 757
- Replies: 248
Sir this case was example of literal rule because court had to consider meaning of word offer for sale in the advertisement, thats why?
January 24, 2018 at 4:50 pm #432695
MikeLittle
Keymaster
- Topics: 27
- Replies: 23333
Is there a question here? “thats why?” – what’s why?
January 24, 2018 at 4:53 pm #432697
humai
Participant
- Topics: 757
- Replies: 248
Sir actually I did read this case several times but I could not get in my mind that what was the literal rule here?
January 24, 2018 at 4:56 pm #432699
MikeLittle
Keymaster
- Topics: 27
- Replies: 23333
Does the word “offer” mean “offer”
The Act says that goods of the description should not be offered for sale
The Court decided that goods in a shop window are not “offers” – they’re invitations
OK?
Author
Posts

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

The topic ‘Fisher v Bell (1961)’ is closed to new replies.