ETMA 01 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

ETMA 01 - Essay Example The type of conviction for breaking these rules is called a summary conviction (Sunbeds Regulation Act section 2 (6)(7), 2010). It is possible that the person can make a defense against a person in their employ that breaks this law if they can show that they made a reasonable effort to prevent this law from being broken. Question #2 A tanning bed is exempt from the regulations in section 2 if it is used for medical treatment. There are some specific guidelines that apply to this regulation. The tanning bed must be dedicated for use in medical treatment. It can not be used for rental for cosmetic purposes part of the time and used for medical purposes for the remainder. Another stipulation requires the actual tanning bed to be located in a registered medical facility. Depending on whether it is in England or Wales, the medical facility must meet certain standards. It may be a clinic or a hospital. Either way, the statute is very clear in showing that tanning beds that are going to be used for medical treatment must not be used for any other purpose and they must be located in a hospital or clinic (Sunbeds Regulation Act section 3). This exemption has some very real consequences for tanning parlors. For example, a 16 year-old person might receive medical treatment in accordance with Section 3 of the Sunbeds Regulation Act. Let’s say they were at a clinic. They enjoyed the experience so much that they wanted to visit a commercial establishment in their neighborhood. The owner of the shop might simply ask this under-age patron if they had used a tanning bed before. The patron may honestly answer in the affirmative, but the shop owner would actually be breaking the law. This shows the need for all tanning salon patrons to show proper identification to avoid breaking the law. Question #3 The location of the tanning beds and the age of the customer or potential customer are the major factors that determine if Shula broke any laws or not. Shula is not in any tro uble for providing services to Nikki. She is 18 years old and the statute is aimed at protecting individuals under the age of 18. Nikki’s age makes Shula’s actions well within the law. Her actions relating to Mandy are not against the law, either. The statute concerning tanning beds does not apply to use within a private residence. It clearly states in Section 2, subsection (2b) that these rules only apply to non-residential uses of tanning beds. Even though Shula lives above the tanning salon, the second floor is her private premises. She can allow the 16 year-old Mandy to use this tanning bed because she is a friend of Mandy’s mother. Shula will be in trouble, however, for the actions of her assistant David. Grant, who was attending the salon with his sister, is under 18. The statute says that no offer can be made by or on behalf of the owner/manager of the establishment that entices underage individuals to use the tanning salon. This means that Shula could be responsible for David’s actions. Shula could possibly offer the defense that she had trained David to avoid this situation by requiring identification before offering any offers for tanning. If Shula could show that she had given due diligence through training, then she will not be held accountable. Tina does not need to worry about her use of a tanning bed. She is exempt because the