I don't understand this case study.. please help

[schoolishell]

I don't understand the question nor do I understand the case study, would somebody please help me, thank you

Fisher v Bell 1961

Question :In the case of Fisher v. Bell the court adopted a very narrow, legalistic interpretation of a statute. Do you think it was appropriate for the court to take this approach? 

Case:
Common law rules relating to the law of contract make it clear that when an item is displayed in a shop, this is regarded as an invitation to treat. the legally binding offer and acceptance required for a contract to be enforceable occurs when a buyer makes an offer to buy the item and the shopkeeper accepts that offer. simply displaying an item does not constitute an offer. the defendant in this case had a flick on display in the window of his shop. under the restrictions of offensive weapons act 1959 (UK), it was illegal to 'offer for sale or hire... any knife which has a blade which opens automatically.' the defendant was prosecuted under this Act, but his counsel successfully argued in his defence that the display of the knife was an invitation to treat, not an offer, so the exact wording of the Act did not apply to this situation. The Restrictions of Offensive Weapons Act was amended in 1961 to insert the words 'or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire' to close this legal loophole.

[dduongg]

In the case of Fisher v Bell, the case revolved around the law of contract - more specifically the requirements of OFFER and ACCEPTANCE.

Under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, it was illegal 'offer for sale or hire... any knife which has a blade which opens automatically.'

The defendant (the Shopkeeper) was charged under the Act for offering a flick knife for sale. He argued that merely displaying the product was an 'invitation to treat' and not an offer. He believed that when a buyer of a knife purchases the product and the shopkeeper accepts the purchase for the product, this at the time constituted to an offer.

The prosecution argued  that displaying the knife in the window of the shop with the objective of attracting a buyer/s -  constituted an offer of sale, which they believe was sufficient to be criminally liable.

As a result, the Judge found in favour for the defendant, and interpreted the Act to a degree in which displaying a knife did not constitute an 'offer' but only an 'invitation to treat'. The Act was altered to insert the words 'or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire' to close the loophole and quite frantically overruled the High Court's decision.

To answer the question - By adopting a narrow interpretation of the Act by the High Court, it meant that displaying a knife was an invitation and no an offer. In my opinion, this literal approach (plain or ordinary meaning) to the law meant that other areas concerning the section could not be considered. E.g. If a shopkeeper displays a knife, and he/she cannot be charged for it, unless someone buys it, leads to a considerable amount abuse and escape from the law. Therefore, the High Court's narrow interpretation does not provide for the law to be fully developed to cover all situations that may arise under this specific section. Thus, the law is flawed and Parliament has made errors in drafting and passing the bill.

Also, altering the Act had the effect of closing a loophole. If this interpretation was not carried out,  shopkeepers would be able to sell a knife in their store (by displaying the product with a tag) without being charged for an offence under the Act, unless a customer came into the store and purchased the product with the shopkeeper accepting the offer (by providing a receipt and accepting the money).