Betts v. Armstead, L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 771 (1888), was an
English case decided by the
Queen's Bench that adopted a
strict liability standard and furthermore no requirement of knowledge or suspicion for violations of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 (
38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). The defendant contended that he did not know that his product did not abide by the standards of the
statute, but the court held that there was no
mens rea requirement for the violation.
[1]
- ^ Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2004, p. 252
 | This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Betts v. Armstead, L.R. 20 Q.B.D. 771 (1888), was an
English case decided by the
Queen's Bench that adopted a
strict liability standard and furthermore no requirement of knowledge or suspicion for violations of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 (
38 & 39 Vict. c. 63). The defendant contended that he did not know that his product did not abide by the standards of the
statute, but the court held that there was no
mens rea requirement for the violation.
[1]
- ^ Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2004, p. 252
|
| This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
|
| This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |