[jambutty]

Originally Posted by blazey

It just annoys me that people can't be bothered to actually CHECK the law before they mouth off about what they THINK is the law.

And I dont think I will ever be as equally big, ugly or old as you, but at least I know I will always be more intelligent than you.

Why dont you just get over the fact that asda can sell or refuse to sell their product to whoever they want.

Forget about using houses as example, use pedigree dog breeders. If a dog breeder invites you to his house to view the dogs, and implies he is willing sell to you there and then, but upon your visit realises you are not a suitable owner for whatever reason, maybe for example the dog doesn't like cats and you own a cat, who knows, whatever reason, then he simply has the right to send you away. There is no law stating that he must accept your money when they offer to buy something that you have put up for sale.

You want a real example? Here is the case that counters what you are trying to argue. When you have finished reading it hopefully you will be enlightened to the position of the law and stop being a windbag as Ianto would put it.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Queen's Bench Division
16 July 1952

Subject: Sale of Goods
Keywords: Criminal liability; Offer and acceptance; Pharmacists; Poisons
Summary: sale by or under supervision of registered pharmacist
Abstract: It is a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shop-keeper exposes goods which indicate to the public that he is willing to treat does not amount to an offer to sell. The defendants had adopted a "self-service" system in their shop, which consisted in allowing persons who resorted to the shop to go to shelves where goods were exposed for sale and marked with the price. They took the article required and went to the cash desk, where the cashier or assistant saw the article, stated the price, and took the money. In one of their departments there were on certain shelves ointments and drugs coming within Part I of the Poisons List. Before any person could leave with what he had bought in that department he had to pass the scrutiny and supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The question for the opinion of the court was whether each sale was effected in accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 s.18(1)(a)(iii) which provides that the sale of any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List shall not be lawful, unless "the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist." Held, the mere fact that a customer picked up a bottle of medicine from a shelf did not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell, but was an offer by the customer to buy; there was no sale until the buyer's offer to buy was accepted by the acceptance of the purchase price, and that took place under the supervision of a pharmacist; therefore, there should be judgment for the defendants.

Wooo! Who’s getting all bitter and twisted?

Re your doggie tale. Pun intended.

Would that be before or after the client indicated that he would buy the puppy? If you are going to quote an example then at least have the intelligence to quote all pertaining facts. I think that that also answers your “I am more intelligent than you” jibe. I had the intelligence to spot your error. You were stupid enough (and therefore of lesser intelligence) not to include a salient point. Thus it could be argued that I am more intelligent than you are. Not that I give a tinkers cuss anyway.

Re also the windbag jibe. It does take one to know one you know. So welcome to the windbag club. I elect you as president or at least chief windbag.

As for your pathetic attempt to make your case with the pharmacy thing. First of all that was in 1952 and there have been many changes to many laws. Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age.