What remedy, if any, might be available to consumers duped into eating horsemeat? Max Weaver investigates
It will be difficult for consumers to prove who deceived them into eating horsemeat or that they have suffered detriment. Contract law is unlikely to assist as many consumers will not be parties to a relevant contract. In tort, even when the defendant has acted intentionally, there is a reluctance to give a remedy for mere offence or distress and no tangible harm has been caused.
Public policy is often described as an “unruly horse”, following Borough J in Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229, [1824–34] All ER Rep 258, 266. It raises fears of the cavalier (or chevalier) imposition of liability. While in the current food scandals no significant health threat has yet emerged, meat products have been found to contain pork and horsemeat. Some involuntary consumers are offended or upset at being deceived into eating food that their religion prohibits or animals that they regard as too domesticated to eat. The risk was not merely “foreseeable” but “foreseen”: the government was alerted 18 months ago
