s 33 Reliance on written warranty a good defence
33.—(1) Subject to this section, it is a good defence in any prosecution for an offence under Part 3 if the accused proves that —(a) the accused purchased the food or food contact article sold by the accused in reliance on a written warranty or other written statement as to the nature of the food or food contact article purchased, signed by or on behalf of the person from whom the accused purchased the food or food contact article; (b) the accused had no reason to believe that the food or food contact article sold did not conform to such warranty or statement; and (c) if the food or food contact article had truly conformed to such warranty or statement, the sale of the food or food contact article by the accused would not have constituted the offence charged against the accused.[48/2017] (2) No warranty or other written statement given or made by a person resident outside Singapore is a defence under this section, unless the accused proves that the accused had taken reasonable steps to ascertain and did in fact believe in the truth of the matters set out in such warranty or statement. (3) No warranty or other written statement is a defence in any prosecution, unless the accused has, within 7 days after service of the summons, delivered to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty or statement with a written notice stating that the accused intends to rely on the warranty or statement and specifying the name and address of the person from whom the accused received it, and has also within the same time sent by registered post a like notice of the accused’s intention to such person. (4) When the accused is an employee or agent of the person who purchased the food or food contact article under such a warranty or written statement, the accused is, if the accused further proves that the accused had no reason to believe that the article did not conform to the warranty or statement, entitled to the benefit of this section in the same manner and to the same extent as the accused’s employer or principal would have been, if the accused’s employer or principal had been the accused.[48/2017] (5) Any person who in respect of any food or food contact article sold by the person as principal or agent gives to the purchaser a false written warranty shall be guilty of an offence, unless that person proves to the satisfaction of the court that when that person gave the warranty that person had reason to believe that the statements or descriptions contained in the warranty were true.[48/2017]