A Level Law Practice Exam

In the case of Harrow LBC v Shah, what led to the defendants' liability?

1. They knowingly sold a lottery ticket to a minor

2. An employee mistakenly sold a lottery ticket to a minor

3. They failed to follow proper training procedures

4. They were unaware of the minor's age

The correct answer is: An employee mistakenly sold a lottery ticket to a minor

In the case of Harrow LBC v Shah, the defendants were held liable primarily due to the actions of their employee, who mistakenly sold a lottery ticket to a minor. This case illustrates the principle of strict liability in relation to the sale of age-restricted goods. The law does not allow for a defense based on mistake or lack of knowledge regarding the buyer's age in these circumstances. The focus of the liability was on the fact that the regulatory framework surrounding the sale of lottery tickets places a responsibility on retailers to ensure that they do not sell to individuals who are underage. Even though the employee acted without malice or intent to violate the law, the company was still held accountable for not having sufficient safeguards to prevent such a sale. This demonstrates that businesses need to ensure that their staff are adequately trained and that robust procedures are in place to verify ages when selling age-restricted items. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to legal standards in retail practices and the consequences of failing to implement effective training and verification processes.