THE RETAILER'S POSITION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 34, 1 June 1914, Page 4

THE RETAILER'S POSITION.

Recent Court proceedings in Britain against grocers under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act serve to emphasise an of 1.-repeated warning, viz., that in buying certain classes of goods the retailer should lwaays insist on obtaining a written warranty. A typical case of this character is referred to in a London correspondent's letter, from which it is gathered that the case was against a Wolverhampton grocer, who was prosecuted xor selling sardines which were not of the nature and substance and quality demanded, in that they were packed in cotton seed oil and not in olive oil as stated on the tin. It has frequently been suggested that the fact of the statement on the tin should of itself constitute a warranty, and thus remove the onus of defending a charge of this character from the retailer to the producer. In point of fact, such would be a good defence if action were taken under the Merchandise Marks Act, but the Food and Drugs Act requires a , specific warranty of genuineness before the warranty defence can be advanced, and the magistrate who fined the grocer mentioned above remarked that ho ought, to so protect himself. Another point in connectoin with this question may be mentioned, in view of the confusion which appears to exist on the matter. It is suggested by the secretary of a grocers' association that the safeguard of a warranty is of no avail for more than six months after it is given. This i s by no means an rncommon opinion, but according to a legal- authority it is incorrect. Xo mention of a time limit is made in the clause which provides that if a defendant prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had purchased the article in question with a written warranty as to its character, and he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was otherwise, and he sold it in the same stote as when he purchased it, he shall be discharged from the prosecution, although he will bo liable to pay the costs of the prosecution unless ha has previously given notice of his intention to rely upon this defence.