High Court Of Justice Law Report, July 16 Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE . HiS LORDSHIP gave judngment for the defendants, Boots Cash Chemists (Southern), Ltd., in an action brought by the Pharmaceu- tical. Society of Great Britain to detennine whether sales of drugs in the defendants' premises in Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist in accordance with the provisions of section 18 (1) (a) (iii) of the Pharma?f and Poisons Act, 1933. The rollowing facts appeared from an agreed statement, The defendants carried on a business comprising the retail sale of drugs from numerous.sets of premises. The Premises in question at Edgware comprised a single room adapted so that customers might serve tbemselves and the business there was described as " Boots Self Service." On entry the customer passed a barrier where a wire basket was-obtained; beyond the barrief the room contained shelves and one part of it was described as the " Chinist's Dept." where drugs, including proprietary medicines, were displayed in individual packages or containers with the retail price clearly marked. One section of the chemist's department was devoted to drugs -which contained substances included in Part I of the Poisons List, in such small quantities as to be harmless and not within the first schedule to the Poisons Rules, 1949 (S.I. 1949, No. 539). Each customer, having selected from the shelves the article that he wished to buy and placed it in the wire basket, had, to leave the premises, to pass by one of two exits at which was stationed a cashier who scrutinized- the articles selected by the customer. assessed the value, and accepted payment. The chemist's department was under the control of a registered pharmacist, stationed near the poisons section, and -in every case involving the sale of a drug the pharmacist scrutinized that part of the transaction which took place at the cash desk and was authorized to prevent at that stage, if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premises. Mr. H. V. Lloyd-Jones, Q.C.; and Mr. Thomas Dewar appeared for the Pharmaceu- tical Society; Mr. H. Glyno-Jones, Q.C., and Mr. Errington for the defendant company. BY section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, (I) . it shall not be lawful (a) for a person to sell any Poison Included in Part I of the Poisons List unless (i ii) the sale Is effected by. or under the supervision of. aregistered Pharmacist. JUDGMENT The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving judgment, said that the question to be decided was whether a completed sale had taken place before the money was paid and the pharmacist was passed, or whether the sale was completed at that moment. No doubt many fine dlstinc- dions had been drawn with regard to what, in the formation of a contract, was an offer to buy or an offer to sell. Mr. Lloyd-Jones had submitted that, in the present case, the defendants had invited the public to come into the shop and help themselves to any of the articles, which were all priced; and therefore there was an offer by the defendants to sell the goods to any person coming into the shop who was willing to buy at the marked price. Mr. Glyn-Jones had contended that there was nothing revolutionary about the self-service method of trading and that it was no more than an expsure of goods such as was made by a1l shopkoeepers. It was a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shopkeeper exposed goods for sale did not amount to an offer to sell. He (his Lordship) did not think that he ought to hold that there was a complete reversal of that principle merely because the sale was by means of the self-service system, which amounted to no more than that a customer could pick up an article and bring it to the shopkeeper. The offer, in fact, was an offer to buy, and it was for the shopkeeper to say whether he would sell or not when the customer brought the goods to him. The very fact that a super- vising pharmacist was near the place where the money was paid was some intimation that t,e, shopkeeper was not necessarily willing to conclude a contract with anyone who might pick up goods. There would therefore be judgment for the defendants. Solicitors:-Mr. A. C. Castle; Messrs. Masons. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION LEGALIfY OF SELF-SERVICE SALES OF DRUGS PHARMACEUTICAL, SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN v. BOOTS CASH CHEMISTS (SOUTHERN), LTD.