This sentence is not incorrect, but very unusual. And "é" is not an appropriate translation for "has".
Of course it is not incorrect. It's very common usage in British English where the past participle of get is "got" and not "gotten". http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/have-got-grammar.aspx
To me, American English, it is wrong and unnatural. An hour has sixty minutes. Because it is an unchangeable fact. However, I do say: He has got sixty minutes today, and more, or maybe less, tomorrow.
To me "An hour has 60 minutes" is also unnatural. I would say, "There are 60 minutes in an hour." But that does not make either "has got" or "has" wrong. And I am also a native American English speaker. The rules that dictate our personal grammars are not always the same that dictate the grammar of the wider language. Especially on the Internet we need to be conscious of this. Examples: You've got a smile that could light up the world. You have a smile that could light up the world.
The sky's got enough stars for all of us to wish upon. The sky has enough stars for all of us to wish on.
These groups are pretty much identical in meaning and they represent a mostly unchanging feature. Neither is wrong, though "have/has got" is certainly less formal in American English. Unless you can point to a widely accepted grammatical rule that is contradicted by a structure, the best thing to say is, "This seems unnatural to me. I would say..."
We can keep on splitting hairs about this, but it is not worth our time. I placed the original post out of frustration (hence a missing letter and a space) after encountering crooked sentences, missing translations and inconsistencies for days on end. I do spend the time to report my view of a possible correction in the lesson. Thereby I hope to contribute to improving this beta version. It is entirely up to the developers to evaluate these suggestions.