Contract Law Pre-Work W/C 9/11/2020 Seminar 5 W/C 9th November Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] ER 972 . The defendant (D) city council had a policy of selling council houses to its tenants and the claimant of a council house had applied for details of the house he was renting and the mortgage terms . The city treasurer replied to the application saying the council may be prepared to sell the house at the purchase price and provided the details of the mortgage . The letter said it didn't amount to a firm offer of a mortgage and invited the C to make a formal application and the C returned the form to the D . The government changed from conservative to labour and the new policy was council houses could not be sold under the previous policy unless a legally binding contract was in place . The D refused to sell the C so they brought an action against them in breach of contract . This was successful in the first instance . The issue on appeal was whether the Dtts letter was properly construed as an offer or as an invitation to treat . The house of lords held that there was no concluded contract and the D was not legally bound to sell the property as the councils letter did not state the price and was not at offer but an invitation to treat Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 . The shopkeeper, the D, displayed in his shop window a flick knife accompanied by a price ticket and he was charged with offering a sale of a flick knife contrary of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 . The issue was whether the display of the knife was an offer for sale or an invitation to treat . The court held that the display of the knife was not an offer to sale but an invitation to treat and the D had not offered the knife for sale within the meaning of S1 of the act . It is well established that the display of an item in a shop window is an invitation to treat to potential customers to treat so the D was therefore not guilty of the offence Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401 . The D ran a self service shop in which non-prescription drugs and medicines, which were listed in the poisons list in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, were sold . These were displayed on shelves where they could be selected by the customer, taken to the till and paid for . The till was operated by a registered pharmacist but the c brought proceedings against the D for breach of S18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act which requires the supervision of a registered pharmacist for the sale of any item in the poisons list . The issue was whether the contract of sale was concluded