Legislatives Frameworks
- Submitted by: kikonitis
- Views: 1142
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 05/17/2011 10:29 AM
- Pages: 7
- Report this Essay
Legislative Frameworks
The Macgregor Case
Tutor: David Barling Gasson
Student ID 21089892
Regina v MacGregor [2010]
Magistrates Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010
Peter booked a room for a week at McGregor’s hotel. On the second night of his stay he invited his friend Beatrice to dinner in the hotel’s restaurant. At dinner Peter ordered Helford oysters for both of them. The oysters that were served to them in fact came from Whitstable and several of them were bad, as a result Beatrice had a food poisoning.
McGregor’s has been charged under Trade Description Act 1968 S1, (1b) as the menu stated that the oyster’s were from Helford but in fact were from Whitstable. And under Food Safety Act 1990 S8 (1b) and (2a) as well as S14 (1), (2).
For case supporting used Hobbs v Winchester Corporation (1910) case
Held: McGregor was not guilty under Trade Description Act 1968, the fact that oysters was from different supplier had not been obvious, because hotel using both suppliers depended on a season and he could not possibly have know about it. But court held that McGregor is guilty under Food Safety Act as in England is high general health & safety standards and places which provides catering service for customer must strictly follow them of witch particular cases found that it is have not been done.
Peter v MacGregor [2010]
Crown Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010
Peter, the claimant, on arrival date took up an agreement with Macgregor’s Hotel by face to face communication. This contractual agreement terms were for a 7dys room stay. Peter had a in his possession a Olympus Camera for the value of £999.99, which at the point of booking, declared this by asking the booking staff member to look after this expensive camera. She, the receptionist, then refused to accommodate Peter’s request, so the claimant then had no choice but to resort to the trust of...
The Macgregor Case
Tutor: David Barling Gasson
Student ID 21089892
Regina v MacGregor [2010]
Magistrates Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010
Peter booked a room for a week at McGregor’s hotel. On the second night of his stay he invited his friend Beatrice to dinner in the hotel’s restaurant. At dinner Peter ordered Helford oysters for both of them. The oysters that were served to them in fact came from Whitstable and several of them were bad, as a result Beatrice had a food poisoning.
McGregor’s has been charged under Trade Description Act 1968 S1, (1b) as the menu stated that the oyster’s were from Helford but in fact were from Whitstable. And under Food Safety Act 1990 S8 (1b) and (2a) as well as S14 (1), (2).
For case supporting used Hobbs v Winchester Corporation (1910) case
Held: McGregor was not guilty under Trade Description Act 1968, the fact that oysters was from different supplier had not been obvious, because hotel using both suppliers depended on a season and he could not possibly have know about it. But court held that McGregor is guilty under Food Safety Act as in England is high general health & safety standards and places which provides catering service for customer must strictly follow them of witch particular cases found that it is have not been done.
Peter v MacGregor [2010]
Crown Courts (David Barling Gasson) May 26th, 2010
Peter, the claimant, on arrival date took up an agreement with Macgregor’s Hotel by face to face communication. This contractual agreement terms were for a 7dys room stay. Peter had a in his possession a Olympus Camera for the value of £999.99, which at the point of booking, declared this by asking the booking staff member to look after this expensive camera. She, the receptionist, then refused to accommodate Peter’s request, so the claimant then had no choice but to resort to the trust of...