Fisher v Bell (1961)Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA LW Exams › 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)AuthorPosts January 24, 2018 at 4:32 pm #432688 humaiParticipantTopics: 757Replies: 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 MikeLittleKeymasterTopics: 27Replies: 23321☆☆☆☆☆Is there a question here? “thats why?” – what’s why? January 24, 2018 at 4:53 pm #432697 humaiParticipantTopics: 757Replies: 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 MikeLittleKeymasterTopics: 27Replies: 23321☆☆☆☆☆Does the word “offer” mean “offer”The Act says that goods of the description should not be offered for saleThe Court decided that goods in a shop window are not “offers” – they’re invitationsOK?AuthorPostsViewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)The topic ‘Fisher v Bell (1961)’ is closed to new replies.