國際商法教程案例翻譯

國際商法教程案例翻譯

PharmaceuticalSocietyofGreatBritainv.BootsCashChemists(Sourhern)Ltd.

[1953]1Q.B.401,[1953]1AllE.R.482(C.A.)

Thedefendants,Boots,operatedaself–servicepharmacy.Onepartofthestorewascalledthe”ToiletDept.,”andanotherthe”Chemists‘Dept.”O(jiān)neoftheshelvesinthechemists’departmentdrugs,includingproprietarymedicines,weredisplayedinindividualpackagesorcontainerswithanindicationofthepriceofeach.Onesectionoftheshelvesinthechemists’deparementwasdevotedexclusivelytodrugswhichwereincludedin,orwhichcontainedsubstancesincludedin,PartⅠofthePoisonsAct,1933;…

Thedefendants’staffincludedamanager,aregisteredpharmacist,threeassistantsandtwocashiers,andduringthetimewhenthepremiseswereopenforthesaleofdrugsthemanager,theregisteredpharmacist,andoneormoreoftheassistantswerepresentintheroom.Inordertoleavethepremisesthecustomerhadtopassbyoneoftwoexits,ateachofwhichwasacashdeskwhereacashierwasstationedwhoscrurinizedthearticlesselectedbythecustomer,assessedthevalueandacceptedpayment.Thechemists’departmentwasunderthepersonalcontroloftheregisteredpharmacist,whocarriedoutallhisdutiesatthepremisessubjecttothedirectionsofasuperintendentappointedbythedefendantsinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection9oftheAct.

Thepharmacistwasstationednearthepoisonsection,wherehiscertificateofregistrationwasconspicuouslydisplayed,andwasinviewofthecashdesks.Ineverycaseinvolvingthesaleofadrugthepharmacistsupervisedthatpartofthetransactionwhichtookplaceatthecashdeskandwasauthorizedbythedefendantstopreventatthatstageofthetransaction,ifhethoughtfit,anycustomerfromremovinganydrugfromthepremises.Nostepsweretakenbythedefendantstoinformthecustomers,beforetheyselectedanyarticlewhichtheywishedtopurchase,ofthepharmacist’sauthorization.

OnApril13,1951,atthedefendants’premises,twocustomers,followingtheprocedureoutlinedabove,respectivelypurchasedabottlecontainingamedicineknownascompoundsyrupofhypophosphites,containing0.01%W/Vstrychnine,andabottlecontainingmedicineknownasfamelsyrup,containing0.23%W/Vcodeine,bothofwhichsubstancesarepoisonsincludedinPartⅠofthePoisonsList…

ThequestionfortheopinionofthecourtwaswhetherthesalesinstancedonApril13,1951,wereeffectedbyorunderthesupervisionofaregisteredpharmacist,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection18(1)(a)(iii)ofthePharmacyandPoisonsAct.1933.

TheLordChiefJusticeansweredthequestionintheaffirmative[[1952]2Q.B.795,[1952]2AllE.R.456].ThePharmaceuticalSocietyappealed.

SomervellL.J….TheplaintiffsarethePhaimaceuticalSociety,incorporatedbyRoyalcharter.OneoftheirdutiesistotakeallreasonablestepstoenforcetheprovisionsoftheAct.Theprovisioninquestioniscontainedinsection18.[HisLordshipreadthesection,statedthefacts,andcontinued:]Itisnotdisputedthatinachemist’sshopwherethisself-servicesystemdoesnotprevailacustomermaygoinandaskayoungwomanassistant,whowillnotherselfbearegisteredpharmacist,foroneofthesearticlesonthelist,andthetransationmaybecompletedandthearticlepaidfor,althoughtheregisteredpharmacist,whowillnodoubtbeonthepremises,willnotknowanythinghimselfofthetransaction,unlesstheassistantservingthecustomer,orthecustomer,requirestoputaquestiontohim.ItisrightthatIshouldemphasize,asdidtheLordChiefJustice,thatthesearenotdangerousdrugs.Theyaresubstanceswhichcontainverysmallproportionsofpoison,andIimaginethatmanyofthemarethetypeofdrugwhichhasawarningastowhatdosesaretobetaken.Theyaredrugswhichcanbeobtained,underthelaw,withoutadoctor’sprescription.

Thepointtakenbytheplaintiffsisthis:itissaidthatthepurchaseiscompleteifandwhenacustomergoingroundtheshelvestakesanarticleandthattherefore,ifthatisright,whenthecustomercomestothepaydesk,havingcompletedthetourofthepremises,theregisteredpharmacist,ifsominded,hasnopowertosay:”Thisdrugoughtnottobesoldtothiscustomer.”Whetherandinwhatcircumstanceshewouldhavethatpowerweneednotinquire,butonecan,ofcourse,seethatthereisadifferenceifsupervisioncanonlybeexercisedatatimewhenthecontractiscompleted,

IagreewiththeLordChiefJusticeineverythingthathesaid,butIwillputthemattershortlyinmyownwords.Whethertheviewcontendedforbytheplaintiffsisarightviewdependsonwhatarethelegalimplicationsofthislayout–theinvitationtothecustomer.Isacontracttoberegardedasbeingcompletedwhenthearticleisputintothereceptacle,oristhistoberegardedasamoreorganizedwayofdoingwhatisdonealreadyinmanytypesofshops–andabooksellerisperhapsthebestexample–namely,enablingcustomerstohavefreeaccesstowhatisintheshop,tolookatthedifferentarticles,andthen,ultimately,havinggottheoneswhichtheywishtobuy,tocomeuptotheassistantsaying“Iwantthis?”Theassistantin999timesoutof1,000says“Thatisallright,”andthemoneypassesandthetransactioniscompleted.Iagree…thatinthecaseofanordinaryshop,althoughgoodsaredisplayedanditisintendedthatcustomersshouldgoandchoosewhattheywant,thecontractisnotcompleteduntil,thecustomerhavingindicatedthearticleswhichheneeds,theshopkeeper,orsomeoneonhisbehalf,acceptsthatoffer.Thenthecontractiscompleted.Icanseenoreasonatall,thatbeingclearlythenormalposition,fordrawinganydiffererntimplicationasaresultofthislayout.

TheLordChiefJustice,Ithink,expressedoneofthemostformidabledifficultiesinthewayoftheplaintiffs’contentionwhenhepointedoutthat,iftheplaintiffsareright,onceanarticlehasbeenplacedinthereceptaclethecustomerhimselfisboundandwouldhavenoright,withoutpayingforthefirstarticle,tosubstituteanarticlewhichhesawlaterofasimilarkindandwhichheperhapspreferred.Icanseenoreasonforimplyingfromthisself–servicearrangementanyimplicationotherthan...thatitisaconvenientmethodofenablingcustomerstoseewhatthereisandchoose,andpossiblyputbackandsubstitute,articleswhichtheywishtohave,andthentogouptothecashierandoffertobuywhatthey