The literal rule

[Max Soh]

Why is the Fisher v Bell case said to apply the literal rule?

1. Is it because the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 doesn't state that displaying offensive weapons is an offense?

2. Or is it by applying the literal rule that the display is an invitation to treat. If so, all similar cases regarding to invitation to treat can be quoted for the literal rule?

[Cubicile_blues]

Fisher v Bell (1961): goods exhibited with a price label are merely an invitation to treat

In this case, a shopkeeper was prosecuted for offering offensive weapons for sale, by having flick-knives on display in his window.

Court’s decision: it was held that the shopkeeper was not guilty as the display in the shop window was not an offer for sale but only an invitation to treat.

Unless somebody offers the shopkeeper to purchase those weapons, and he accepts to sell them, he cannot be held guilty.