Coppen v Moore (No 2)

Facts

The appellant owned six shops selling American hams. Staff were told to call them breakfast hams and not to name a place of origin. In his absence, and without the branch manager's knowledge, an assistant sold one as a Scotch ham. He was charged under the Merchandise Marks Act 1887.

Issue

Does the owner 'sell' when only the assistant conducts the transaction?

Held

Yes. Lord Russell said the appellant sold the ham, although the sale was carried out by his servant. He was the seller, though not the salesman.

Principle

A statute that uses 'sell' can treat the employer's act as done when the employee conducts the sale, because only the employer passes title.

Why it matters

This is vicarious liability by construction, not by delegation.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.