1Cases of Law of Contract:1.1 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] The defendant’s branch at Edgeware was adapted to a self-service system whereby customers selected goods from the shelves and took them to a cash desk to pay the price. One section of the shelves was set out with drugs included in the poisons list referred to in s.17 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, though they were not dangerous drugs and did not require a doctor’s prescription. Section 18 of that Act required the sale of such drugs to take place in the presence of a pharmacist. All sales of drugs on the poisons list were supervised at the cash desk by a pharmacist. The Society, which had a duty to enforce the Act, brought an action against Boots on the basis that the display of the drugs constituted an offer, which the customer accepted when he selected goods from the shelves. The sale was thus completed without supervision. Held: The display of drugs on the shelves was not an offer but an invitation to treat. The contract was made when the assistant at the cash desk accepted the customer’s offer to buy what had been chosen. The presence of the pharmacist at the cash desk fulfilled the requirements for supervision under the Act. 1.2 Harvey v Facey [1893] Harvey sent a telegram to Facey: “Will you sell Bumper Hall Pen, telegraph lowest cash price.” Facey replied with a telegram: “Lowest cash price Bumper Hall Pen £900.” Harvey purported to accept this offer but Facey did not respond. Harvey sued. Held: There was no contract. Facey’s telegram was not an offer but a reply to an inquiry. 1.3 Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co [1893] Defendants were proprietors of a medical preparation called “The Carbolic Smoke Ball”. They advertised in a number of newspapers that they would pay £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using the ball three times a day for two weeks. Mrs Carlill used the ball as advertised and caught flu. She sued for the £100 promised by the advertisement. Various defences were raised; in particular it was claimed that the advertisement was not intended to constitute an offer, since it would amount to an attempt to contract with the whole world, which was impossible. Held: There was a binding contract. The advertisement was an offer to the whole world, which was accepted by those who fulfilled the conditions. Mrs Carlill had fulfilled the conditions, and was thus entitled to be paid the £100. 1.4 Wolf & Wolf v Forfar Potato Co (1984)The defenders sent a telex dated 29/11/77 to the pursuers in Amsterdam, offering to sell a specific quantity of potatoes, the offer to remain open until 17.00 hours the following day. The pursuers replied by telex stating that they accepted the offer, then varying certain of its terms. After a telephone conversation with the defenders, the pursuers sent a further telex, still within the time limit, accepting the defender’s original offer, though requesting that additional points be given consideration. The defenders did not supply the potatoes and were sued for damages. 2Held: The defenders could not be liable for breach of contract as there was no contract. The terms of the pursuer’s original “acceptance” did not meet the terms of the offer and therefore constituted a counter-offer. This had the effect of making the original offer lapse. The time limit, which was part of that orginal offer, lapsed at the same time. 1.5 Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979)Butler offered to supply a machine to Ex-Cell-O, the offer stating that supply was to be on Butler’s standard terms and conditions. The terms and conditions were printed on the back of the form and included, inter alia, a clause allowing Butler to vary the price to that prevailing on the date of delivery. The form also stated that Butler’s terms and conditions were to prevail over those of the buyer. Ex-Cell-O placed an order for the machine on its own standard order form, which had a tear-off acknowledgement slip which acknowledged acceptance of the order on the buyer’s terms and conditions. Butler signed and returned this slip. When the machine was delivered, Butler tried to claim an extra £2,900 under the variation clause in its standard terms. Held: Butler could not alter the contract price. The conditions on the order form amounted to a counter-offer which rejected Butler’s original offer. The counter-offer had been accepted by Butler when the acknowledgement was returned.1.6 Jacobsen Sons & Co v Underwood & Son Ltd (1894) On March 2 Underwood offered to buy straw from Jacobsen, the offer stating that it was to remain open until 6 March. On 6 March, Jacobsen wrote and posted an acceptance of the offer, but this was not delivered to Underwood until March 7. Underwood claimed there was no contract because the acceptance had not reached them until after the stated date and they refused to accept the straw when Jacobsen tried to deliver it. Held: Because the acceptance。