Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Sourhern) Ltd.
[1953] 1Q. B.401,[1953] 1 All E.R.482(C.A.)
the ringcurtainsThe defendants, Boots,operated a lf – rvice pharmacy.One part of the store was called the”Toilet Dept.,”and another the”Chemists ‘Dept.”One of the shelves in the chemists’ department drugs,including proprietary medicines ,were displayed in individual packages or containers with an indication of the price of each. One ction of the shelves in the chemists’ deparement was devoted exclusively to drugs which were included in, or which contained substances included in ,Part Ⅰof the Poisons Act , 1933;…
The defendants’ staff included a manager ,a registered pharmacist, three assistants and two cashiers, and during the time when the premis were open for the sale of drugs the manager ,the registered pharmacist,and one or more of the assistants were prent in the room.In order to leave the premis the customer had to pass by one of two exits, at each of which was a cash desk where a cashier was stationed who scrurinized the articles lected by the customer, assd the value and accepted payment .The chemists’ depart
our什么意思ment was under the personal control of the registered pharmacist, who carried out all his duties at the premis subject to the directions of a superintendent appointed by the defendants in accordance with the provisions of ction 9of the Act.
The pharmacist was stationed near the poison ction, where his certificate of registration was conspicuously displayed, and was in view of the cash desks. In every ca involving the sale of a drug the pharmacist supervid that part of the transaction which took place at the cash desk and was authorized by the defendants to prevent at that stage of the transaction , if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premis.No steps were taken by the defendants to inform the customers, before they lected any article which they wished to purcha , of the pharmacist’s authorization.
On April 13 , 1951,at the defendants’ premis,two customers,following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchad a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophosphites, containing 0.01% W/V strychnine, and a bottle conta
ining medicine known as famel syrup, containing 0.23%W/V codeine, both of which substances are poisons included in PartvdslⅠ发型设计培训中心 of the Poisons List…
The question for the opinion of the court was whether the sales instanced on April 13, 1951, were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist , in accordance with the provisions of ction 18(1)( a )(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act . 1933.
compounded
英文日期The Lord Chief Justice answered the question in the affirmative [[1952] 2 Q . B .795, [1952] 2 All E . R. 456 ].The Pharmaceutical Society appealed.
Somervell L. J….The plaintiffs are the Phaimaceutical Society , incorporated by Royal charter .One of their duties is to take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of the Act. The provision in question is contained in ction 18.[His Lordship read the ction, stated the facts ,and continued:] It is not disputed that in a chemist’s shop where this lf-rvice system does not prevail a customer may go in and ask a young woman assistant ,who will not herlf be a registered pharmacist, for one of the articles on the list ,and t
he transation may be completed and the article paid for, although the registered pharmacist, who will no doubt be on the premis, will not know anything himlf of the transaction, unless the assistant rving the customer,or the customer, requires to put a question to him. It is right that I should emphasize ,as did the Lord Chief Justice, that the are not dangerous drugs. They are substances which contain very small proportions of poison , and I imagine that many of them are the type of drug which has a warning as to what dos are to be taken. They are drugs which can be obtained, under the law ,without a doctor’s prescription.
The point taken by the plaintiffs is this: it is said that the purcha is complete if and when a customer going round the shelves takes an article and that therefore, if that is right, when the customer comes to the pay desk, having completed the tour of the premis, the registered pharmacist, if so minded, has no power to say:”This drug ought not to be sold to this customer.” Whether and in what circumstances he would have that power we need not inquire, but one can, of cour ,e that there is a difference if supervision can only be exercid at a time when the contract is completed,
opportunitiesI agree with the Lord Chief Justice in everything that he said, but I will put the matter shortly in my own words. Whether the view contended for by the plaintiffs is a right view depends on what are the legal implications of this layout – the invitation to the customer . Is a contract to be regarded as being completed when the article is put into the receptacle, or is this to be regarded as a more organized way of doing what is done already in many types of shops – and a bookller is perhaps the best example – namely, enabling customers to have free access to what is in the shop, to look at the different articles, and then, ultimately, having got the ones which they wish to buy ,to come up to the assistant saying “I want this?” The assistant in 999 times out of 1,000 says “That is all right, ” and the money pass and the transaction is completed. I agree… that in the ca of an ordinary shop , although goods are displayed and it is intended that customers should go and choo what they want, the contract is not completed until, the customer having indicated the articles which he needs ,the shopkeeper, or someone on his behalf, accepts that offer . Then the contract is completed . I can e no reason at all, that being clearly the normal position, for drawing any differernt implication as a result of this layout.
考研准考证下载
The Lord Chief Justice, I think , expresd one of the most formidable difficulties in the way of the plaintiffs’ contention when he pointed out that ,if the plaintiffs are right ,once an article has been placed in the receptacle the customer himlf is bound and would have no right , without paying for the first article, to substitute an article which he saw later of a similar kind and which he perhaps preferred. I can e no reason for implying from this lf – rvice arrangement any implication other than . . . that it is a convenient method of enabling customers to e what there is and choo ,and possibly put back and substitute, articles which they wish to have , and then to go up to the cashier and offer to buy what they have so far chon. On that conclusion the ca fails, becau it is admitted that there was supervision in the n required by the Act and at the appropriate moment of time. For the reasons, in my opinion, the appeal should be dismisd.
