国际商法教程案例翻译.docx
《国际商法教程案例翻译.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《国际商法教程案例翻译.docx（5页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
国际商法教程案例翻译
国际商法教程案例翻译
国际商法教程案例翻译
PharmaceuticalSocietyofGreatBritainv.BootsCashChemists（Sourhern）Ltd.
[1953]1Q.B.401,[1953]1AllE.R.482（C.A.）
Thedefendants,Boots,operatedaself–servicepharmacy.Onepartofthestorewascalledthe”ToiletDept.,”andanotherthe”Chemists‘Dept.”Oneoftheshelvesinthechemists’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,andthentogouptothecashierandoffertobuywhattheyhavesofarchosen.Onthatconclusionthecasefails,becauseitisadmittedthattherewassupervisioninthesenserequiredbytheActandattheappropriatemomentoftime.Forthesereasons,inmyopinion,theappealshouldbedismissed.
BirkettL.J.[notedthatitwasthedutyofthePharmaceuticalSocieytoenforcethispartoftheActandcontinued:
]Thetwowomencustomersinthiscaseeachtookaparticularpackagecontainingpoisonfromtheparticularshelf,putitintoherbasket,cametotheexitandtherepaid.Itissaid,ontheonehand,thatwhenthecustomertakesthepackagefromthepoisonsectionandputsitintoherbasketthesalethereandthentakeplace.Ontheotherhand,itissaidthedoesnottakeplaceuntilthatcustomer,whohasplacedthatpackageinthebasket,comestotheexit.
TheLordChiefJusticedealtwiththematterinthisway,andIwouldliketodaopthiswords[[1952]2Q.B.795at802]:
Itseemstome,therefore,thatthetransactionisinnowaydifferentfromthenormaltransactioninashopinwhichthereisnoself--servicescheme.Iamquitesatisfieditwouldbewrongtosaythattheshopkeeperismakinganoffertoselleveryarticleintheshopuoanypersonwhomightcomeinandthatthatpersoncaninsistonbuyinganyarticlebysaying“Iacceptyouroffer.”
Thenhewentontodealwiththeillustrationofthebookshop,andcontinued:
Therefore,inmyopinion,themerefactthatacustomerpicksupabottleofmedicinefromtheshelvesinthiscasedoesnotamounttoanacceptanceofanoffertosell.Itisanofferbythecustomertobuyandthereisnosaleeffecteduntilthebuyer’soffertobuyisacceptedbytheacceptanceoftheprice.Theoffer,theacceptanceoftheprice,andthereforethesaletakeplaceunderthesupervisionofthepharmacist.Thatissufficienttosatisfytherequirementsofthesectionforbyusingthewords“thesaleiseffectedby,orunderthesupervisionof,aregisteredpharmacist”theActenvisagesthathesalemaybeeffectedbysomeonenotapharmacist.Ithink,too,thatthesaleiseffectedunderhissupervisionifheisinapositiontosay“Youmustnothavethat:
thatcontainspoison,”sothatinanycase,evenifIwerewrongintheviewthatIhavetakenonthequestionastowhenthesalewascompleted,anditwascompleted,anditwascompletedwhenthecustomertookthearticlefromtheshelf,itwouldstillbeeffectedunderthesupervisionofthepharmacistwithinthemeaningofsection18.
Iagreewiththat,andIagreethatthisappealoughttobedismissed.
[RomerL.J.deliveredaconcurringjudgment.]
医药学会大不列颠诉靴现金化学家（sourhern）有限公司
被告，靴子，开办了一个自我–服务药房。
一部份商店被称为“卫生部，”另一个“化学家”部。
”一个架子在化学系药物，包括专利的药品，显示在每个包装或容器的指示每一个价格。
一部分的货架的化学家处是专门为药物，其中包括在，或其中部分包括物质，Ⅰ的毒药，1933；…
被告的工作人员包括一个经理，注册药剂师，三助理和2名收银员，并在当时的房屋开放药品销售经理，注册药剂师，和一个或更多的助手们在房间。
要离开单位客户已通过一个出口，在其中每个现金出纳台，驻扎谁scrurinized文章由客户选定，评估的价值和接受的付款。
化学家部是根据个人控制的注册药剂师，谁进行了所有他的职责在房屋的指示者由被告根据本法第9行为。
药剂师驻守附近的毒药，在其注册证明书是突出显示，并鉴于现金桌。
在每一个案件涉及出售毒品药剂师监督，交易的一部分发生在收款台和被授权的被告以防止在这个阶段的交易，如果他认为合适的任何客户，消除任何药物的处所。
没有采取了步骤，由被告人检举客户，才选定任何文章，他们希望购买的，药剂师的授权。
1951年4月13日，在被告的处所，两家客户后，上述程序，分别购买了一瓶含有医学上称为次磷酸盐复合糖浆，含0.01%瓦特/五宁，和一瓶药称为famel糖浆，含0.23%瓦特/五可待因，这两者都是有毒物质包括在Ⅰ部分的毒药名单…
这个问题的意见，
升级会员 