The conflict which can arise when creating or reinforcingcurriculum change in an academic institution is explored, with referenceto the start of the Enterprise in Higher Education…
Abstract
The conflict which can arise when creating or reinforcing curriculum change in an academic institution is explored, with reference to the start of the Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative at Leeds Polytechnic.
Details
Keywords
The limitations of the “passing over” defence contained in Section 113, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, especially in its use by an employer to avoid liability for the act or default of…
Abstract
The limitations of the “passing over” defence contained in Section 113, Food and Drugs Act, 1955, especially in its use by an employer to avoid liability for the act or default of his employee, have been described in recent issues of the B.F.J., which have also contained a brief historical review of the development of the defence. With the enormous extension in recent years of the sale of factory‐wrapped and packed foods and retailers selling them to the public without prior inspection, unopened in the same state as received from the manufacturers, there have been increasing attempts to use the defence by retailers charged with selling food or drugs not of the nature, etc., under Section 2 of the Act, and especially where this Section has been invoked for the presence of foreign matter in the food. Judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Chingford Borough Council v. Gwalter and A. & B. C. Chewing Gum Ltd., in the Divisional Court, where the first respondent was the retailer and the second, the manufacturers, the relevant parts of the judgment being reported on page 123 of this issue, emphasises the limitations of the passing‐over defence when used in this way.