Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Food Act 2014

Provisions relating to recognition, territorial authorities, administration, and enforcement - Offences - Defences

253: Defences in prosecution for selling non-complying food

You could also call this:

"You have a defence against selling bad food if you can prove you didn't know it was bad."

Illustration for Food Act 2014

If you are being prosecuted for selling food that does not comply with the rules, you have a defence if you can prove certain things. You must prove that you bought the food because someone told you in writing what it was, and you believed them. You must also prove that if the food was what you were told it was, selling it would not have been against the law. You need to show that a reasonable person would not have suspected the food was not what they said it was. You must also prove that you sold the food in the same condition it was in when you bought it.

If you bought the food in a package, you have a defence if you sold it in the same package and condition, and you could not reasonably have known that selling it would be against the law. These defences only apply if you are being prosecuted for selling food that does not comply with the rules, such as those in sections 234(1), 240, 243, and 244.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM2996373.

Topics:
Health and wellbeing > Food and water safetyBusiness > Industry rulesCrime and justice > Criminal law
Previous

252: Defences in prosecution for advertising offence, or

"What to do if you're in trouble for advertising food wrongly: saying it wasn't your fault"

Next

254: Defence in prosecution of body corporate, principal, or individual for action of director, agent, or employee, or

"You're not guilty if someone working for you did something wrong and you tried to stop them."

Part 4Provisions relating to recognition, territorial authorities, administration, and enforcement
Offences: Defences

253Defences in prosecution for selling non-complying food

  1. This section applies in a prosecution for an offence against any of sections 234(1), 240, 243, and 244.

  2. The defendant has a defence if the defendant proves that—

  3. the defendant bought the food in reliance on a statement as to the nature of the food that was in writing and supplied by or on behalf of the person from whom the defendant bought the food; and
    1. the defendant's sale of the food would not have constituted the offence with which the defendant is charged if the food had in fact conformed to the statement; and
      1. a reasonable person would have had no reason to suspect that the food did not conform to the statement or that the statement was not genuine; and
        1. when the defendant sold the food, it was in the same condition as it was when the defendant bought it.

          1. The defendant has a defence if the defendant proves that—

          2. the defendant bought the food in a package and sold it in the same package and in the same condition as it was in when the defendant bought it; and
            1. the defendant could not reasonably have found out that selling the food would constitute the offence with which the defendant is charged.

              1. The defences provided by this section only apply to offences involving the sale of non-complying food.