Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
premises, the customer had to pass by one of the two exits, at each of which was a cash desk where a cashier was stationed who scrutinised the articles selected by the customer, assessed the value and accepted payment. The chemist’s department was under the personal control of the registered pharmacist. The pharmacist was stationed near the poisons section 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 authorised by the defendants to prevent at that stage of the transaction, if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premises. No steps were taken by the defendant to inform the customers of the pharmacist’s authorisation before they selected any article which they wished to purchase. On 13 April 1951, at the defendant’s premises, two customers, following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchased a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophophites, 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 were poisons included in Pt I of the Poisons List. The question for the opinion of the court was whether the sales instanced on 13 April 1951 were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, in accordance with the provisions of s 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. The Lord Chief Justice answered the question in the affirmative. The Pharmaceutical Society appealed: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, CA, p 404
DOI link for premises, the customer had to pass by one of the two exits, at each of which was a cash desk where a cashier was stationed who scrutinised the articles selected by the customer, assessed the value and accepted payment. The chemist’s department was under the personal control of the registered pharmacist. The pharmacist was stationed near the poisons section 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 authorised by the defendants to prevent at that stage of the transaction, if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premises. No steps were taken by the defendant to inform the customers of the pharmacist’s authorisation before they selected any article which they wished to purchase. On 13 April 1951, at the defendant’s premises, two customers, following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchased a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophophites, 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 were poisons included in Pt I of the Poisons List. The question for the opinion of the court was whether the sales instanced on 13 April 1951 were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, in accordance with the provisions of s 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. The Lord Chief Justice answered the question in the affirmative. The Pharmaceutical Society appealed: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, CA, p 404
premises, the customer had to pass by one of the two exits, at each of which was a cash desk where a cashier was stationed who scrutinised the articles selected by the customer, assessed the value and accepted payment. The chemist’s department was under the personal control of the registered pharmacist. The pharmacist was stationed near the poisons section 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 authorised by the defendants to prevent at that stage of the transaction, if he thought fit, any customer from removing any drug from the premises. No steps were taken by the defendant to inform the customers of the pharmacist’s authorisation before they selected any article which they wished to purchase. On 13 April 1951, at the defendant’s premises, two customers, following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchased a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophophites, 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 were poisons included in Pt I of the Poisons List. The question for the opinion of the court was whether the sales instanced on 13 April 1951 were effected by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, in accordance with the provisions of s 18(1)(a)(iii) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933. The Lord Chief Justice answered the question in the affirmative. The Pharmaceutical Society appealed: Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 QB 401, CA, p 404
ABSTRACT
On 13 April 1951, at the defendant’s premises, two customers, following the procedure outlined above, respectively purchased a bottle containing a medicine known as compound syrup of hypophophites, 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 were poisons included in Pt I of the Poisons List.
