Your son walks into the K Circle Store and sees a Fuse Tea offered at 1/$1.99. When at the cash check out, the pricing says $2.19 and then a further 13% was added so the total paid was $2.47. The boy told the man the price displayed on the fridges says $1.99. He ent and took a look. The boy was sure that is the price. They took a photo. The man said you pay what the sale terminal says today and maybe come back and speak to a manager. So, he did and got his refund. In fact, he got the can for free due to the Price accuracy policy. With the money saved, he got a doughnut pastry and some baklava that makes you grow big. What do you think should happen based on the laws? Discuss an Invitation to Treat vs. an Offer. Read Fisher v. Bell. Fisher v Bell (1961) is a landmark English contract law case that established that displaying goods with a price tag in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not a legal offer for sale, even if a statute makes "offering" such items illegal. The shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his window, violating the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, but the court quashed the conviction, applying contract law principles that the customer makes the offer at the cash register checkout, which the shopkeeper can then accept or reject. As customary around the world at Airports, at 7/11 Convenience stores or at Off Licenses or Smoke Shops, the general expectations and understanding, although the price is legally only an invitation to treat offers, is that the customer and retailer abide by the price on display or the tag as the general offer price for ease, speed and simplification in the shopping experience since we don't have time for bull crap. The retailer accepts the general offer price for the sale. We have the offer from the customer and acceptance from the retailer. I have to catch my Uber ride. You must not try to bend the spoon. Turn your frown the other way around. You must bend yourself.

 

Click for more. on December 17, 2025

Your son walks into the K Circle Store and sees a Fuse Tea offered at 1/$1.99.   When at the cash check out, the pricing says $2.19 and then a further 13% was added so the total paid was $2.47. The boy told the man the price displayed on the fridges says $1.99. He ent and took a look. The boy was sure that is the price. They took a photo. The man said you pay what the sale terminal says today and maybe come back and speak to a manager.  So, he did and got his refund.  In fact, he got the can for free due to the Price accuracy policy. With the money saved, he got a doughnut pastry and some baklava that makes you grow big. What do you think should happen based on the laws? Discuss an Invitation to Treat vs. an Offer. Read Fisher v. Bell. 

Fisher v Bell (1961) is a landmark English contract law case that established that displaying goods with a price tag in a shop window is an invitation to treat, not a legal offer for sale, even if a statute makes "offering" such items illegal. The shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his window, violating the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, but the court quashed the conviction, applying contract law principles that the customer makes the offer at the cash register checkout, which the shopkeeper can then accept or reject. 

As customary around the world at Airports, at 7/11 Convenience stores or at Off Licenses or Smoke Shops, the general expectations and understanding, although the price is legally only an invitation to treat offers,    is that the customer and retailer abide by the price on display or the tag as the general offer price for ease, speed and simplification in the shopping experience since we don't have time for bull crap. 

The retailer accepts the general offer price for the sale.  We have the offer from the customer and acceptance from the retailer. 

I have to catch my Uber ride.  You must not try to bend the spoon. Turn your frown the other way around. You must bend yourself. 

 

Key Facts

• Defendant: A shopkeeper, James Bell, displayed a flick knife with a price tag in his shop window.
• Statute: The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it illegal to "offer for sale" certain flick knives.
• Prosecution: A police officer charged the shopkeeper, arguing the display was an illegal offer. 

Legal Issue

• Did displaying the knife in the window constitute a legal "offer for sale" under the Act, or was it merely an invitation for customers to offer to buy it? 

Court's Ruling

• The court held that under general contract law, a shop window display is an invitation to treat (an invitation for customers to make offers).
• Therefore, the shopkeeper had not technically "offered" the knife for sale in the legal sense, and his conviction was quashed. 

Significance

• This case clearly distinguishes between an offer (which creates a binding contract upon acceptance) and an invitation to treat (a preliminary step to negotiation) in contract law.
• It confirmed that statutes must be interpreted in line with established legal principles, even if common language suggests otherwise.
• Following this, the law was changed by the Offensive Weapons Act 1961, which specifically made displaying such weapons an offense. 

Under Ontario's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the marked price should be what the customer pays, requiring suppliers to show all-inclusive costs (including HST/fees) and generally honor advertised or displayed prices, meaning you shouldn't be surprised by extra charges unless agreed upon, especially for estimates (capped at 10% over). The law prevents misleading pricing, ensuring the price shown is the total price, promoting a fair marketplace for consumers. 

 

In Ontario, while contract law typically views price tags as an "invitation to treat," the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA), along with voluntary industry codes (like the Price Accuracy Policy for major retailers), aims to ensure you pay the displayed price, especially if it's lower than the checkout price; if it's higher, you get the lower price, with specific compensation (e.g., $10 off or the item free for under $10) under the voluntary policy, preventing misleading advertising under the CPA and Competition Act. 

Key Principles

• Invitation to Treat: Traditionally, displaying goods is the store inviting you to buy, and the sale (contract) forms at the cash register.
• Consumer Protection Act (CPA): Prohibits false or misleading representations (Section 14), covering deceptive pricing.
• Competition Act: Federal law preventing selling higher than an "advertised price". 

The Retailers' Price Accuracy Policy (Voluntary)

• Lower Price: If scanned higher than displayed/advertised, you pay the lower price.
• Compensation:
  • Item under $10: Free.
  • Item over $10: $10 discount off the corrected price.
• Applies To: Major retailers participating in this code (e.g., Loblaws, Walmart, Canadian Tire, Home Depot).  
• What This Means for You

• You are generally entitled to the lowest price shown, especially at major stores.
• Report issues: If staff are unaware, calmly request the lower price, referencing the store's policy or the CPA. 
• Recent & Future Changes

• "What You See Is What You Pay" Bills: Bills like Bill 28 and 190 aim to amend the CPA to mandate all-inclusive pricing and clearer discount disclosures, though their current status needs checking. 
• In Summary: While contract law gives retailers leeway, Ontario's CPA, federal rules, and store-specific codes mean you should get the lower price if there's a discrepancy, ensuring fair practice.