Introduction
This essay explores the doctrine of precedent through the application of the ratio decidendi from Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 to a modern online transaction scenario involving Greg and Miltons. The purpose is to analyse whether a contract has been formed at various stages of Greg’s interaction with Miltons’ website, focusing on the concepts of offer and acceptance. Drawing on key judicial reasoning from Lord Somervell, Lord Justice Birkett, and Lord Justice Romer in the Boots case, this essay will outline arguments for both parties—Greg, who asserts a binding contract exists, and Miltons, who denies contractual obligation. The analysis will cover the stages of the transaction as identified in the scenario, assessing how the precedent applies or can be distinguished in an online context.
Stage 1: Greg Sees the Special Offer on Miltons’ Website
At the initial stage, Greg logs onto Miltons’ website and sees a television advertised for £10.00 under a “special offer.” Greg could argue, referencing Lord Somervell’s judgment in Boots, that this advertisement constitutes an invitation to treat rather than an offer, as displays in a self-service context are not offers (Somervell LJ, [1953] 1 QB 401 at 405). However, he might contend that the explicit “special offer” wording suggests a unilateral offer, akin to cases like Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, potentially binding Miltons upon acceptance. Conversely, Miltons can firmly rely on Boots, where Somervell LJ clarified that price displays are invitations to treat, not offers, thus negating contract formation at this stage. The online nature of the display does not significantly distinguish this from Boots, as the principle of invitation applies across mediums.
Stage 2: Greg Clicks on the Product for More Detail
When Greg clicks on the product to view details, he might argue that this action signals intent to engage seriously with the offer, inching closer to acceptance. However, per Lord Justice Romer’s reasoning in Boots ([1953] 1 QB 401 at 408), selecting an item (or viewing it online) does not bind either party, as no offer has yet been accepted; Greg remains free to abandon the process. Miltons can reinforce this by asserting that clicking for details is akin to browsing in a shop, a preliminary step with no contractual implication. The online context mirrors the self-service system in Boots, where interaction with goods precedes any offer.
Stage 3: Greg Adds the Television to the Shopping Basket
At the third stage, Greg clicks “put in shopping basket.” He could argue that this action constitutes acceptance of Miltons’ supposed offer, creating a contract. Yet, Lord Justice Birkett’s judgment in Boots ([1953] 1 QB 401 at 407) counters this, stating that placing goods in a basket is merely an offer by the customer, accepted only at the point of payment under supervision. Miltons can argue that adding an item to an online basket parallels selecting goods in-store; acceptance has not occurred absent confirmation or payment. While online transactions might suggest faster contract formation, the Boots precedent prioritises final acceptance, likely at checkout, distinguishing this stage from a binding agreement.
Conclusion
In summary, the application of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists to Greg v Милтоns reveals that no contract likely exists at any identified stage of the transaction. Miltons can consistently argue, supported by the judgments of Somervell LJ, Birkett LJ, and Romer LJ, that their website display and Greg’s actions represent invitations to treat and preliminary steps, respectively, not offer and acceptance. Greg’s counterarguments, while creative, struggle against the established precedent prioritising final acceptance at payment. This analysis underscores the enduring relevance of Boots in modern contexts, though it highlights potential limitations in applying physical store principles to online transactions. Further judicial clarification may be needed to address such evolving commercial environments.
References
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256.
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401.
