R v Bull [1997] RTR 123 - S 1(1)(a) TDA.
- applying - "Bull disclaimer".
1) to copy an odometer reading on to an invoice is to apply a trade description.
2) a qualification to a description is part of the description and not a "mere disclaimer".
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- Alec Norman Garages Ltd v Phillips [1984] RTR 164 - Ss 1, 4 and 24 TDA.
1) s 1(1)(a) - strict liability offence - proof of dishonesty not required. 2) s 4 - applying a trade description by using it. 3) s 24 - due diligence - reasonable for supplier to check vehicle's history. - Wolkind and Northcott v Pura Foods Ltd (1987) 151 JP 492 – S 1(1)(b) and s 3(2) TDA – FLR 1980.
1) description “vegetable lard” not false. – meaning of “lard” not restricted to pig fat. – dictionary definition. - description to be given its current day meaning. 2) description “vegetable lard” not misleading. - description to be given its modern day meaning. 3) (“Bull”) disclaimer. - description “lard” qualified by “vegetable”. 4) true nature of food. - Norfolk County Trading Standards Service v Bycroft and Ors [2012] EWHC 4417 (Admin) – S 1 PMA – (FA – CPUTR – BPMMR).
- “approximately”, “subject to survey”, “not guaranteed”. 1) 0.4 acres could not reasonably be regarded as approximately 0.75 acres. 2) policy of PMA to protect public from false or misleading statements; legislation not concerned with actual impact of misdescription in individual case. 3) fact that accuracy of a statement is not guaranteed does not answer the question of whether the statement is false. 4) difference between a “disclaimer” and a “qualification” of an asserted fact. - makes no sense to assert a fact and then disclaim it. - test of whether a qualified statement is false has to be applied to the statement as qualified.