Section 2(2) of the 1887 Act made it an offence to sell or expose for sale goods to which a forged trade mark or false description was applied unless the alleged offender could prove what amounted to due diligence. Salesmen at one of the appellant’s shops sold American Ham as Scotch Ham, despite instructions from the appellant to branch managers that breakfast hams should only be sold as such, without reference to any place of origin. He was nevertheless convicted. It was contended on his behalf that he should not be held criminally liable for the unauthorised acts of his servants.
Held: ‘In our judgment it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to make the master criminally liable for such acts, unless he was able to rebut the prima facie presumption of guilt by one or other of the methods pointed out in the Act. Take the facts here, and apply the Act to them. To begin with, it cannot be doubted that the appellant sold the ham in question, although the transaction was carried out by his servants. In other words, he was the seller, although not the actual salesman.’
Judges:
Lord Russell CJ
Citations:
(1898) 2 QB 306
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Nottingham City Council v Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries QBD 27-Nov-2003
A pub was found to have been selling beer below the advertised strength. Both licensee and the owner of the pub were prosecuted. The owner now appealed.
Held: The owner was liable. The words of the Act must be given their ordinary and natural . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188662
