header-logo header-logo

27 February 2013 / Max Weaver
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

The mane line

What remedy, if any, might be available to consumers duped into eating horsemeat? Max Weaver investigates

It will be difficult for consumers to prove who deceived them into eating horsemeat or that they have suffered detriment. Contract law is unlikely to assist as many consumers will not be parties to a relevant contract. In tort, even when the defendant has acted intentionally, there is a reluctance to give a remedy for mere offence or distress and no tangible harm has been caused.

Public policy is often described as an “unruly horse”, following Borough J in Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229, [1824–34] All ER Rep 258, 266. It raises fears of the cavalier (or chevalier) imposition of liability. While in the current food scandals no significant health threat has yet emerged, meat products have been found to contain pork and horsemeat. Some involuntary consumers are offended or upset at being deceived into eating food that their religion prohibits or animals that they regard as too domesticated to eat. The risk was not merely

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll