Facebook Pixel Code
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.


This is a preview of the 4-page document
Read full text

The act concurs with the definition of Elliot, bt it further describes the facilities that are not sunbeds. Te act states that any facility that has the capability of producing a tann, wthout using ultra violet rays is not a sunbed. Cmeron (27) denotes that section 1(3) of the act states that a sunbed business is a commercial organization that has one or more than one sunbeds for purposes of use. Ana Robic gym is a sunbed facility, bcause it had sunbed facilities for use. Eglish (32) and Helmohz al (19) argue that the main aim of the Sunbed Regulation Act of 2010 is to protect under aged people from physical harm that emanates from ultra violet rays.

Acording to the definition of the Act, Bris used a sunbed machine, wile Catherine did not. Te act recognizes only machines that produce ultra violet rays as sunbed machineries. Te management breached the provision of the Sunbed Act by allowing the minors into their sunbed facility. Mtchell (45) observes that the provision of the act prevents the use of incentives minors, fr purposes of using a sunbed facility.

Te staff offered to reduces the prices of accessing the facility to the two minors, ad they had David working for them. Adrew and Regina breached the provisions of the act, ad in specific section 2(1)(c). Tis section restricts the entry of an underage in a sunbed facility (Martin, 38). Sapper et al, gve a definition of a restricted zone, ad he states that it is a partly, o wholly enclosed space on a premise. I relation to the Sunbed Act, Bris and David had an access to a restricted zone.

Te management therefore broke this law, ad are liable to prosecution. T mount a credible defense, Adrew and Regina have to state that the organization warned Boris and Catherine against using the facility, i they are under age. Tey can prove this by referencing to the advert, o the premises wall stating that the area is strictly for adults. Te two should prove that Boris and Catherine used fake identity cards to access the facility, ad his staff could establish whether they were genuine, een if they inspected the identity cards.

Tis is because it is not the work of his employees to establish between a genuine and a fake identity card. Te two proprietors can use the notion of negligence by Boris to defend themselves concerning the use of a head gear in a sunbed facility. Tis is because Boris did not find it prudent to use...

This is a preview of the 4-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Law, Archaeology, Sociology
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Law, Media, Gender & Sexual Studies
Hire a Writer
  • Pages: 4 (1000 words)
  • Document Type: Essay
  • Subject: Law
  • Level: Undergraduate
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us