國際商法教程案例翻譯

1、國際商法教程案例翻譯國際商法教程案例翻譯Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots CashChemists (Sourhern) Ltd.1953 1Q. B.401,1953 1 All E.R.482(C.A.)The defendants, Boots,operated a self -service pharmacy.One part of the store was called the ”Toilet Dept., ”andanother the ”Chemists Dept. ”O(jiān)noef the shelves in th

2、e chemists ' department drugs,including proprietary medicines ,were displayed in individual packages or containers with an indication of the price of each. One section of the shelves in the chemists' deparement was devoted exclusively to drugs which were included in, or which contained subst

3、a nces in eluded in ,Part I of thePoiso ns Act , 1933;The defendants s'taff included a manager ,a registered pharmacist, three assistants and two cashiers, and during the time when the premises were open for the sale of drugs the manager ,the registered pharmacist,and one or more of the assistan

4、ts were present in the room.In order to leave the premises the customer had to pass by one of two exits, at each of which was a cash desk where a cashier was stationed who scrurinized the articles selected by the customer, assessedthe value and accepted payment .The chemists 'department was unde

5、r the personal control of the registered pharmacist, who carried out all his duties at the premises subject to the directions of a superintendent appointed by the defendants in accordance with the provisions of section 9of the Act.The pharmacist was stationed near the poison section, where his certi

6、ficate of registration was conspicuously displayed, and was in view of the cash desks. In every case involving the sale of a drug the pharmacist supervised that part of the transaction which took place at the cash desk and was authorized by the defendants to prevent at that stage of the transaction

7、, if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premises.No steps were taken by the defendants to inform the customers, before they selectedany article which they wished to purchase , of the pharmacist's authorization.On April 13 , 1951,at the defendants premises,two customers,

8、following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchased a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophosphites, containing 0.01% W/V strychnine, and a bottle containing medicine known as famel syrup, containing 0.23%W/V codeine, both of which substances are poisons in eluded

9、 in Part I of the Pois ons List The question for the opinion of the court was whether the sales instanced on April 13, 1951, were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist , in accordance with the provisions of section 18(1)( a )(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act . 1933.The

10、Lord Chief Justice answered the question in the affirmative 1952 2 Q . B .795, 1952 2 AllE . R. 456 .The Pharmaceutical Society appealed.Somervell L. J .The plaintiffsare the Phaimaceutical Society , incorporated by Royal charter .One of their duties is to take all reasonable steps to enforce the pr

11、ovisions of the Act. The provision in question is contained in section 18.His Lordship read the section, stated the facts ,and continued: It is not disputed that in a chemist 'sshop where this self-service system does not prevail a customer may go in and ask a young woman assistant ,who will not

12、 herself be a registered pharmacist, for one of these articles on the list ,and the transation may be completed and the article paid for, although the registered pharmacist, who will no doubt be on the premises, will not know anything himself of the transaction, unless the assistant serving the cust

13、omer,or the customer, requires to put a question to him. It is right that I should emphasize ,as did the Lord Chief Justice, that these are not dangerous drugs. They are substances which contain very small proportions of poison , and I imagine that many of them are the type of drug which has a warni

14、ng as to what doses are to be taken. They are drugs which can be obtained, under the law ,without a doctor 's prescription.The point taken by the plaintiffs is this: it is said that the purchase is complete if and when a customer going round the shelves takes an article and that therefore, if th

15、at is right, when the customer comes to the pay desk, having completed the tour of the premises, the registered pharmacist, if so minded, has no power to say: ”This drug ought not to be sold to this customer. ”Whether and in what circumstances he would have that power we need not inquire, but one ca

16、n, of course ,see that there is a difference if supervision can only be exercised at a time when the contract is completed,I agree with the Lord Chief Justice in everything that he said, but I will put the matter shortly in my own words. Whether the view contended for by the plaintiffs is a right vi

17、ew depends on what are the legal implications of this layout the invitation to the customer . Is a contract to be regarded as being completed when the article is put into the receptacle, or is this to be regarded as a more organized way of doing what is done already in many types of shops - and a bo

18、okseller is perhaps the best example -namely, enabling customers to have free access to what is in the shop, to look at the different articles, and then, ultimately, having got the ones which they wish to buy ,to come up to the assistant saying want this? ”The assistant in 999 times out of 1,000 say

19、s “Thatis all right, ”and the money passes and the transaction is completed. I agree that in the case of an ordinary shop , although goods are displayed and it is intended that customers should go and choose what they want, the contract is not completed until, the customer having indicated the artic

20、les which he needs ,the shopkeeper, or someone on his behalf, accepts that offer . Then the contract is completed . I can see no reason at all, that being clearly the normal position, for drawing any differernt implication as a result of this layout. The Lord Chief Justice, I think , expressed one o

21、f the most formidable difficulties in the way of the plaintiffs co'ntention when he pointed out that ,if the plaintiffs are right ,once an article has been placed in the receptacle the customer himself is bound and would have no right , without paying for the first article, to substitute an arti

22、cle which he saw later of a similar kind and which he perhaps preferred. I can see no reason for implying from this self service arrangement any implication other than . . . that it is a convenient method of enabling customers to see what there is and choose ,and possibly put back and substitute, ar

23、ticles which they wish to have , and then to go up to the cashier and offer to buy what they have so far chosen. On that conclusion the case fails, because it is admitted that there was supervision in the sense required by the Act and at the appropriate moment of time. For these reasons, in my opini

24、on, the appeal should be dismissed.Birkett L . J. noted that it was the duty of the Pharmaceutical Sociey to enforce this part of the Act and continued: The two women customers in this case each took a particular package containing poison from the particular shelf, put it into her basket , came to t

25、he exit and there paid. It is said ,on the one hand, that when the customer takes the package from the poison section and puts it into her basket the sale there and then take place. On the other hand ,it is said the does not take place until that customer , who has placed that package in the basket

26、, comes to the exit.The Lord Chief Justice dealt with the matter in this way ,and I would like to daopt his words 1952 2 Q.B.795 at 802:It seems to me, therefore, that the transaction is in no way different from the normal transaction in a shop in which there is no self - -service scheme. I am quite

27、 satisfied it would be wrong to say that the shopkeeper is making an offer to sell every article in the shop uo any person who might come in and that that person can insist on buying any article by saying “ I accept your offer. ”Then he went on to deal with the illustration of the bookshop,and conti

28、nued:Therefore, in my opinion ,the mere fact that a customer picks up a bottle of medicine from the shelves in this case does not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell.It is an offer by the customer to buy and there is no sale effected until the buyer's offer to buy is accepted by theaccep

29、tance of the price. The offer ,the acceptance of the price ,and therefore the sale take place under the supervision of the pharmacist .That is sufficientto satisfy the requirements of the section for by using the words “ thesale is effected by ,or under the supervision of ,a registered pharma cist ”

30、 the Act envisages that he sale may be effected by someone not a pharmacist. I think ,too, that the sale is effected under his supervision if he is in a position to say “ Youmust not have that : that contains poison, so ”that in any case ,even if I were wrong in the view that I have taken on the que

31、stion as to when the sale was completed ,and it was completed ,and it was completed when the customer took the article from the shelf, it would still be effected under the supervision of the pharmacist within the meaning of section 18. I agree with that ,and I agree that this appeal ought to be dism

32、issed.Romer L . J . delivered a concurring judgment. 醫(yī)藥學會大不列顛訴靴現(xiàn)金化學家( sourhern )有限公司 被告，靴子，開辦了一個自我-服務(wù)藥房。一部 份商店被稱為“衛(wèi)生部，”另一個“化學家”部。” 一個架子在化學系藥物，包括專利的藥品，顯示 在每個包裝或容器的指示每一個價格。一部分的 貨架的化學家處是專門為藥物，其中包括在，或 其中部分包括物質(zhì)，1的毒藥，1933; 被告的工作人員包括一個經(jīng)理，注冊藥劑師，三 助理和 2 名收銀員，并在當時的房屋開放藥品銷 售經(jīng)理，注冊藥劑師，和一個或更多的助手們在 房間。要離開單位客戶已通過一個

33、出口，在其中 每個現(xiàn)金出納臺，駐扎誰 scrurinized 文章由客 戶選定， 評估的價值和接受的付款。 化學家部是 根據(jù)個人控制的注冊藥劑師， 誰進行了所有他的 職責在房屋的指示者由被告根據(jù)本法第 9 行為。 藥劑師駐守附近的毒藥， 在其注冊證明書是突出 顯示，并鑒于現(xiàn)金桌。 在每一個案件涉及出售毒 品藥劑師監(jiān)督， 交易的一部分發(fā)生在收款臺和被 授權(quán)的被告以防止在這個階段的交易， 如果他認 為合適的任何客戶， 消除任何藥物的處所。 沒有 采取了步驟， 由被告人檢舉客戶， 才選定任何文 章，他們希望購買的，藥劑師的授權(quán)。1951年 4 月 13 日，在被告的處所， 兩家客戶后， 上述程序，分

34、別購買了一瓶含有醫(yī)學上稱為次磷 酸鹽復合糖漿，含 0.01%瓦特 /五寧，和一瓶藥 稱為 famel 糖漿，含 0.23%瓦特 /五可待因，這兩 者都是有毒物質(zhì)包括在I部分的毒藥名單 這個問題的意見，法院是否銷售情況 1951 年 4 月 13 日，影響或監(jiān)督下注冊藥劑師，依照本規(guī) 定第 18（1）（一）（三）的藥劑和毒藥法令。 1933。 首席大法官回答問題肯定 19522 問。二。795， 19522 全部。 R .456 藥物協(xié)會呼吁。索穆威爾 L .J . 原告是 phaimaceutical 社會， 皇家特許成立的。 他們的責任之一是采取一切合 理步驟執(zhí)行該法的規(guī)定。 有爭議的條款是

35、包含在 18 節(jié)。他閱讀部分，陳述事實，并繼續(xù)： 是沒 有爭議，化學家店在這個自助系統(tǒng)沒有一個顧客 進去問一個年輕的女助理， 誰沒有自己的注冊藥 劑師，為這些文章的名單上， 并可完成交易支付 的文章，雖然注冊藥劑師，誰將毫無疑問的處所， 不知道自己的交易， 除非助理服務(wù)客戶， 還是客 戶，需要向他提出一個問題。它是正確的，我要 強調(diào)，正如首席大法官，這些都不是危險藥物。 他們是物質(zhì)含有很小比例的毒藥， 我想他們中的 許多人是這類藥物已警告以什么劑量是采取。 他 們是藥物，可以得到，根據(jù)法律，沒有醫(yī)生的處 方。這一點由原告是這樣的： 這是說， 購買完成如果 當顧客去全面下架文章， 因此，如果是這樣的話， 當客戶來支付辦公桌， 完成旅游的場所， 注冊藥 劑師，如果是這樣的，有沒有權(quán)力說： “這種藥 物不應(yīng)該被出售給客戶。 ”是否和在什么情況下 他會，我們需要查詢，但可以，當然，看到有一 個區(qū)別，如果監(jiān)督只能在當時的合同完成， 我同意首席大法官在他說的話， 但我會把這件事 很快在我自己的話。 視圖是否爭奪原告是一個正 確的觀點，取決于什么是法律問題，這種布局- 邀請客戶。 是一個