 the owner of a business and, unsuccessfully, that section 64 (1) was designed in the 1960s to be used where an adulterated product or a product of a poor quality was supplied – not for dispensing errors.The judge made it clear that these arguments were unlikely to succeed (though on appeal, the arguments in relation to section 85 (5) were accepted; the arguments in relation to section 64 (1) were not heard.Following the judge's opinion on the law Mrs Lee pleaded guilty to the s.85 (5) charge.