Trading standards professionals have long experience in dealing with fraud. Nearly 150 years ago, an appeal against conviction was heard for possessing unjust weighing equipment (Carr v Stringer (1868) 32 JP 517) where Cockburn CJ observed that an item attached to the beam of scales was '...a contrivance which it is manifest can be, and I have no doubt in a majority of instances is, used for the purposes of fraud. It is against the customer and in favour of the seller... the magistrates were quite right in convicting.' (However, in Harris v Allwood (1893) 57 JP7 it was held not to be fraud to use weighing equipment in common with a universal trade practice, i.e. that of weighing goods along with the paper in which they were wrapped, nor was it fraud to deliver tea weighed with the bag if the customer was not expecting net weight see King v Spencer (1904) 68 JP 530.)
展开▼
机译：交易标准专业人士在处理欺诈方面具有丰富的经验。在将近150年前，有人因拥有不公正的称重设备而上诉，被定罪（Carr v Stringer（1868）32 JP 517），其中Cockburn CJ观察到附在秤梁上的物品是“ ...一种发明，清单可以，并且在大多数情况下，我无疑是用于欺诈的。这是对顾客不利，对卖方有利……地方法官的判决是正确的。” （但是，在Harris v Allwood（1893）57 JP7中，使用通用贸易惯例中的称重设备（即对货物及其包装的纸张进行称重）并非欺诈，这也不是欺诈。如果客户不希望净重，则可以用袋包装交付称量的茶，请参见King v Spencer（1904）68 JP 530.）
展开▼
