Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

CASE TITTLE: LAW OF CONTRACT

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain vs Boots [1953] 1 QB 401.



FACT: Goods on display in shops are generally not offers but an invitation to treat. The
customer makes an offer to purchase the goods. The trader will decide whether to accept the
offer: Boots introduced the then new self service system into their shops whereby customers
would pick up goods from the shelf put them in their basket and then take them to the cash
till to pay. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the
legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required
by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist. The court thus needed to determine where
the contract came into existence.

HELD: Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an offer. A customer takes the
goods to the till and makes an offer to purchase. The shop assistant then chooses whether to
accept the offer. The contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence of a pharmacist.

SUMMARY: In conclusion, this case is under law of contract.















CASE: LAW OF AGENCY

Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, 96 F Supp. 2d 578

FACT: Migrant farm workers were recruited in Texas by America's Tempcorps to work in
Case Farm's Ohio-based chicken processing plant. They were given a bus ticket and $20 for
three days of food. Upon arriving they found themselves living in conditions called
"distressing and deplorable" by the court. The employees were packed in to unfurnished
rooms infested with cockroaches and rats. The workers slept on the floor and were
transported in an overcrowded van.

JUDGEMENT: The evidence at trial supported the contention that Case Farms expressly
authorized ATC to recruit and hire people to work at Case Farms Ohio plant, and that such
an express agency existed with the scope of recruiting and hiring migrant workers. The
evidence also supported the contention that the housing and transportation activities were
well within the agents implied authoritybased on Case Farms unique recruiting challenges,
the great distances the migrant workers sought were required to travel, and Case Farms
outsourcing of this difficult recruiting task to ATC.

SUMMARY: In conclusion this case is under the law of agency.















CASE TITTLE: HIRE PURCHASE LAW

Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v. The Malaysia Industrial Finance Corporation & Anor.

FACT: In that case the plaintiff purchased a car and entered into a hire purchase agreement
with a hirer. The car was registered in the name of the hirer with the plaintiffs claim for
ownership indorsed on the register the registration card. The first defendant purchased the car
from a third party and entered into a hire purchase agreement with the second defendant.
After terminating the hire, the plaintiff repossessed the car. The plaintiff thereupon sought a
declaration that it was the owner of the car. The defendant counterclaimed for trespass,
conversion and wrongful detention and damages.

HIRE: It was held that upon the true construction of the plaintiff agreement which was of a
type to which the Hire Purchase Act applied, until the hirer had exercised his option to
purchase the car by paying the total rental sand fulfilling all his obligations under the
agreement, no property in the car passed to the hirer. The court was also of the view that even
though the hirer was the registered owner of the car he was only in law the person who had
possession and use of the car and this fact did not necessarily make him the legal owner of
the car. Even though the registration card of the car named the debtor as the" registered
owner" this fact does not make him the legal owner.

SUMMARY: In conclusion, the case is under hire purchase law.