Williams v Shamah

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 15 September 1975
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1975 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal
• Date: 15 September 1975

Court of Appeal

Malone, C.J.

Criminal Appeal

Williams

and

Shamah

Mr. I. G. Peera, D.P.P. for the appellant

Mr. L. R. Balderamos for the respondent

Criminal Law - Contravention of Price Control Regulations

Statute - Interpretation — Supplies Control Ordinance, 1963

Statute - Interpretation — Supplies (Control) Ordinance No. 10 of 1963

Facts: respondent had goods on shelves within his shop marked at prices in excess of controlled price — Goods exposed to customers but prices not so exposed — respondent acquitted by Chief magistrate of charge of selling certain price controlled items in excess of the controlled price without the written permission of the Controller of Supplies, contrary to the provisions of Regulations 10(1) Supplies (Control) (Prices) Regulations, 1972 — Price Control Regulations expanded definition of word “sale” to include an “offer to sell” — Whether the Chief Magistrate erred in holding that there was no sale — Whether the word “sale” in the Supplies (Control) Ordinance No. 10 of 1963 is to be given the same definition as is used in the Sale of Goods Ordinance, Chapter 207 — Whether the power to make regulations as provided in Section 3 (1)(e) of the Supplies (Control) Ordinance No. 10 of 1963 included a power to expand the meaning of the work “sale” to include transactions which were not sales

Facts: Section 3 (1)(e) provided for making of regulations in certain circumstances — Regulations made to expand the meaning of the word “sale” to include transactions which were not sales: Regulation 2(iii) of Supplies (Control) (Prices) Regulations No. 8 of 1972

Facts: Word “sale” defined in reg. 2(iii) Supplies (Control)(Prices) Regulations No. 8 of 1972 as including an “offer to sell” — Regulations made to supplement Supplies (Control) Ordinance — Ordinance was streamlined statute — Principles of interpretation of a streamlined statute considered — No definition of word “sale” in Ordinance — Whether certain circumstances providing for recourse to subsidiary legislation to construe terms of parent legislation which are ambiguous and doubtful existed in Supplies (Control) Ordinance, 1963 — Whether power provided in section 3(1)(e) of Ordinance for making of regulations included a power to expand the meaning of the word “sale” to be given the meaning as defined in the Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 207

Held: That the word “sale” in the Ordinance was to be given the meaning given to it by the Sale of Goods Ordinance, Chapter 207 — Appeal dismissed.

Held: Regulation 2 (iii) ultra vires and of no effect. Appeal dismissed.

Held: (i) Only where the statute gives power to prescribe exceptions and modifications to its provisions, or possibly also where a statute provides that subsidiary legislation made under it is to have effect as if enacted in the statute, that recourse may then be had to those regulations. The Act does not contain such provision; (ii) The term “sale” has the meaning given it in the Sale of Goods Ordinance; (iii) The act of the respondent was not within the contemplation of “sale” in the Ordinance and could not, by virtue of regulations be regarded as a “sale”. The magistrate's finding that no offence was committed by the respondent was correct.

Malone, C.J.

1 This appeal by a Price Control Officer against decision of the learned Chief Magistrate is on the ground that:

“The decision was erroneous in point of law in that the interpretation of regulation 2(iii) of the Supplies (Control) (Prices) Regulations, No, 8 of 1972, was erroneous in point of law.”

2 That regulation is as follows:

“2.-(iii) In these regulations unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires, reference to a sale includes an offer to sell or an agreement to sell, and a notification by a person of the price proposed by him for the sale of goods made by the publication of such price by exposing goods for sale in association with a mark indicating such price, by the furnishing of a quotation or otherwise, shall be deemed to be an offer to sell such goods.”

3 The respondent was charged with selling certain price controlled items in excess of the controlled price without the written permission of the Controller of Supplies contrary to the provisions of regulations 10(1) of the Supplies (Control) (Prices) Regulations, 1972, hereinafter referred to as “the regulations”. The evidence established no more than that the respondent had the articles in question on shelves within his shop and marked at prices in excess of the controlled price. The articles, but not the price marked on them, were visible to customers. The respondent admitted that the price had been fixed by him without obtaining the permission of the Controller of Supplies. It was submitted by Counsel for the defendant, now the respondent, at the trial before the learned Chief Magistrate, that there had not been a sale of the articles as the Price Control Officer had merely seen the goods on the shelves and taken possession of them. Developing that argument further, Counsel pointed out that regulation 10(i) of the regulations created a number of different offences of which selling above the controlled price without the written permission of the Controller of supplies was but one. Others being buying or agreeing to sell or buy or attempting or offering to sell or buy price controlled goods in excess of the controlled price without the required permission. As therefore a sale had been charged as the offence, then a sale must be proved and that it was submitted the prosecution had not done. In anticipation of the submission of the prosecution that a sale had not to be proved as by regulation 2(iii) of the regulations a sale included the exposure of an article with a price marked on it, Counsel submitted that reliance could not be placed on that regulation. What reasons were advanced for that submission do not appear in the record. On appeal however the reasons given were two. The first being that although regulation 2(iii) of the regulations expands the meaning of a “sale” by including within it an “offer to sell”, an “invitation to treat” is not deemed to be a “sale” but an “offer to sell” so, it was said, a charge alleging a sale did not comprehend a situation such as the present as regulation 10(i) specifically creates as a separate offence the offence of offering goods for sale and in the regulations are the words “unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires”. The second reason advanced was that regulation 2(iii) in expanding the meaning of sale makes use of the words “reference to a sale includes ………………” so implying, it was said, that the expanded meaning of “sale” applied only to those provisions of the regulations where the word “sale” was to be found and not to the provisions of regulation 10(i) where reference is made to “sell”. The more so as in regulation 2(iii) are the words: “unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires”.

4 The above mentioned reasons in support of the submission that a factual situation which was not a sale was not converted, as it were, into a sale by the provisions of regulation 2(iii) are not to my mind sound. If an invitation to treat is made by law a sale, then an invitation to treat becomes in law a sale unless the context otherwise requires. Again if a sale is defined to include an invitation to treat, the mere change of the noun into the verb “sell” cannot exclude an invitation to treat. It will be excluded only if “otherwise stated” or “the context otherwise requires”. The learned Chief Magistrate considered that the context of regulation 10(i) in fact did require the exclusion of an “invitation to treat” from the word “sell”. His reasoning being that as that regulation spelled out the different offences it created — and I have earlier enumerated them — but did not include amongst them an invitation to treat, it was meant to be read without reference to regulation 2(iii) as if it was...