A friend of mine, he ordered a meal and four drinks, a beer for himself, a coca cola for his wife and lemonade for each of the two children. Unfortunately, the children were served with a liquid which contained caustic soda. The caustic soda was used to clean water pipes at the restaurant and had been stored in a lemonade bottle under the counter where other lemonade bottles had also been kept. The children became very ill.
The restaurant manager is being charged with the offence set out under section 59. He claims in his defence that what he had sold to the plaintiff and his family was not food for human consumption.
(a) Please explain why the restaurant manager should be convicted of the offence under section 59?
(b) By looking at parliamentary debates, what's the intention of parliament in enacting section 59?
Thanks for your time and consideration.
