Ford v Guild [1989] ScotHC HCJ_2 (18 October 1989)

Ford v Guild [1989] ScotHC HCJ_2 (18 October 1989)

The appellant failed to take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence, as he did not make any enquiry to verify the previous owner's identity or the vehicle's mileage history. The statutory defences under section 24(1)(b) and section 24(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 were not established. The sheriff was entitled to reach the conclusion that the appellant was guilty.

Citation
[1989] ScotHC HCJ_2
Parties
Appellant: Michael Beveridge Ford; Respondent: Guild
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 October 1989
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Trade Descriptions, False Trade Description, Due Diligence Defence, Reasonable Precautions, Sale of Goods
Criminal Law Consumer Protection Trade Descriptions False Trade Description Due Diligence Defence Reasonable Precautions Sale of Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Beveridge Ford

Appellant

Guild

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing an offence under section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could rely on the defence that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the goods did not conform to the description

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to take all reasonable precautions and exercise all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence, as he did not make any enquiry to verify the previous owner's identity or the vehicle's mileage history. The statutory defences under section 24(1)(b) and section 24(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 were not established. The sheriff was entitled to reach the conclusion that the appellant was guilty.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • conviction and fine of £400 affirmed