Legal Positions In Consumer Cases Essay.

The issue is to determine the legal position of Carmella against Leo’s Sofa store for selling a defective and low-quality product?

According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, there are certain rules applicable to any transaction involving the sale or supply of products, along with transactions of online purchases.

The individual transferring or selling the items must have the legal authority to do so, and the commodities must meet the following requirements: they must be of adequate quality. It is necessary that the goods meet a standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory (Ramsay, 2012). Quality is a broad phrase that encompasses a wide range of issues, including the following:

suitability for all of the functions for which products of that type are typically supplied, as well as the look and finish, as well as the absence of minor deficiencies

• safetydurability
• be appropriate for a certain purpose It is essential that things are suitable for their intended purpose where a customer specifies that they are required for a certain purpose, or if it is evident that goods are meant for a specific purpose and a trader offers them in order to fulfil that requirement.
• correspond to the description, sample, or model. A consumer who relies on a description, sample, or display model has the right to expect the products delivered to meet those specifications. If the products do not conform, it is possible that an infraction has been committed.
• be done appropriately, if the contract includes a provision for installation

In this case, Carmella has brought the sofa from a sale shop which is Leo’s discount store. According to the CPA, 2015 she is entitled to receive a good which is of a satisfactory quality, even the goods have been brough from a sale shop and any unfair or implied term cannot restrict this right of her being a consumer. Therefore, in this case she is entitled to seek compensatory damages from the Sofa store. She is entitled to seek compensatory damages or exchange the goods.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it can be concluded that Carmella can sue Leo’s discount store and ask for exchange of sofa with a better quality one or can ask for monetary return of benefit even after existence of the ‘no refunds on any items notice’.

What is Anthony’s legal position?

The provisions relating to the Consumer Rights Act provides for a number of statutory protections which are assumed to be included within the terms of contract, with respect to the goods, the goods are required to be of satisfactory quality, they are required to be fit for their purpose, they must match the description given by the trader, or where sold through the use of sample or model, must match those specifications within the ambit of provisions of section 9, Section 10, and Section 11. The case of  BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809 and Jewson ltd v Leanne Teresa Boyhan [2003] can be referred here with respect to misleading or deceptive conduct as undertaken by the seller to deceive the buyer. Despite the fact that these instances do not represent new legislation, they serve as a valuable reminder to buyers, dealers, and suppliers of products of the concepts involved in determining whether a product is appropriate for its intended use. If a buyer has stated its goal, there is an implied requirement of fitness for purpose for sellers/suppliers to keep in mind. Evidence that the buyer did not or could not reasonably have relied on seller/ability supplier's or judgement can defeat this claim, though. There may also be an exclusion or limitation clause in terms of supply.

Question 2

By applying the provisions as discussed above, it is asserted that seller should sell the goods within good faith without inculcating any deceptive or misleading conduct which are fit for the purpose as specified, similarly, as Anthony went to buy motor bike from Penny Farthing bike shop, it is assumed that these will be fit for purpose as specified or implied, but as they were not, Anthony being a consumer have certain legal rights, to either return or get the price reduction for the same, in case any loss is caused then the compensation to fulfil the same, if the same had been undertaken with the purpose of deceiving the buyer.

Conclusion

To conclude, Anthony can seek for damages from Penny Farthing bike shop for the injury so caused to him due to the deceptive conduct of seller.

Whether Elliot is entitled to proceed with any claims against PC planet and their employees, or not?

The UCTCCR 1999 provides consumers with additional protections, which are now supplemented by the CRA 2015. This is accomplished in a number of ways:

• By expanding the group of people covered by the criteria of fairness and plain, comprehensible language by adding a requirement that any exclusion be 'prominent' as well as clear. Thus, the contra proferentem rule outlined in Section 3 is validated. A consumer is defined as someone who is "doing for reasons that are totally or mostly outside that individual's trade": Sections 2(3) and 76 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2015.
• In response to the Supreme Court's verdict in Abbey National Plc v The Office of Fair Trading[2009] UKSC 6; [2010] 1 A.C. 696, the Act added an additional requirement of fairness to valid and appropriate to the primary subject matter of the contract or the price/quality ratio to the test of unfairness.
• An "indicative list" of phrases that may be unfair is being expanded in order to clearly exclude terms related to pricing and/or principal topic matter from probable use of an exemption.

In this case, exclusion clause was mentioned clearly in the subject matter of the contract drafted by PC planet and signed by Elliot. Here, Elliot is at fault he must have read the contract before signing the contract and he was not forced or bind to enter into the contract. In addition to this, the term was clearly mentioned. However, because of the software installed by PC planet, the main reason why Elliot went to them was dismissed and failed because of the software installed by them. Therefore, by applying the above-mentioned law and case, the exclusion clause can be held ineffective.

Conclusion

Driving conclusion from above discussion, Elliot can claim Compensation for the defect and take actions against PC planet for computer damage.

Since liability clauses are among the most controversial and highly disputed aspects in business contracts, it is critical that they are properly designed. Such provisions may restrict a party's obligation by eliminating certain categories of damage entirely from the contract's purview or by limiting the amount of recoverable loss. When designing or negotiating exclusion clauses, several things must be considered to guarantee that the term is enforceable. Exclusion provisions must be carefully constructed to guarantee that the innocent party will be able to recoup any possible damages. Numerous exclusion provisions are only permissible if they are reasonable in light of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA). The ‘reasonableness test' includes provisions that aim to exclude damage caused by negligence (with the exception of death and bodily injury, which cannot be excluded at all); any clause by which a seller attempts to limit his obligation when the other party is a consumer or has purchased on the seller's usual terms; as well as any restrictions on liabilities for misrepresentation (except for fraudulent misrepresentation which cannot be excluded at all) (Riefa, and Willett, 2018).

Question 3

With regard to the conditions known (or which should reasonably have been known) at the time of contracting, reasonable terms are those that are fair and reasonable, as determined by UCTA's reasonableness standards. Additionally, the statute includes a non-exhaustive list of considerations to examine when determining reasonableness. With respect to the case of Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 416, the claimant paid for the use of a train cloak room. When he dropped off his possessions, the operator of the room issued him a ticket. On the reverse of this ticket, the defendant (who ran the room) declared that he was not accountable for any item valued at more than £10. There was a sign in the cloakroom that used the same word. Neither the ticket nor the notification was read by the claimant. His possessions were taken. When he sued the defendant for their worth, the defendant used the ticket and notice's limitation provision.

At trial, the court instructed the jury to assess whether, in light of the facts, the plaintiff was required to take reasonable as well as proper caution in reading or becoming aware of the provision. On appealing, the defendant argued that the judge's directive was erroneous. The court determined that the judge's instruction was erroneous and remanded the case for retry. The correct inquiry for the jury should have been whether the defendant provided reasonable notice to the claimant of the condition's existence (Riefa and Willett, 2018).

Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of cases will be determined on their own facts, making it extremely difficult, if not unattainable, to forecast how a court would find on a limitations of liability clause. The majority of parties would not enter into a contract if they believed the exclusion provision was unreasonable. Consequently, and specifically after a contract has been formed, it would be illogical to later assert that an exclusion provision is unreasonable unless there is a very compelling reason to do so - as well as it would be illogical to base this determination on the UCTA reasonableness test. When drawing up exclusion clauses, it is advisable to make sure reasonableness rather than trying to negotiate vigorously and inevitably along with an onerous clause that efficaciously excludes one party's liability for breach of all contractual obligations and therefore is liable to be struck out by a court as not creating a contract at all.

Question 4

The three major pieces of business-to-consumer legislation (the Sale Of Goods Act, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and the Supply of Goods and Services Act), the Consumer Rights Act makes a significant contribution to the advancement of consumer rights in the United Kingdom.

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first item of legislation; the Act is only applicable to liability that arises in the course of a company and in respect to other enterprises. As a result, it does not offer complete security from unjust terms. In addition, it outlines particular examples of unfair terms.  In particular, punishment provisions are not covered by its jurisdiction. Unfair Contract Terms Act has multiple degrees of protection for the parties involved in the transaction. There are certain clauses that guarantee absolute protection, while others are subject to a review of whether the period included was fair. Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) covers not only contractual responsibility but also negligence and Occupiers Liabilities Act (OLA).

According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, goods must be as advertised, of satisfactory quality, and fit for their intended use. Fit for purpose refers to the fact that they are suited for both their usual use and any special purpose that you have agreed with the seller.  Furthermore, the items presented must be identical to any samples or descriptions that you may have seen in-store or in a brochure. It Is Possible That You Were Made Aware Of Problem Or Issue Before You Acquired The Things In Which Case The Goods Are Not Required To Be Of Acceptable Quality Under The Law. It's impossible for a consumer to say that the items were of poor quality if you had the opportunity to inspect them and did not notice that they were not up to set standard; or if you were selling a sample and the quality was clear to everyone who inspected it.

By law, service providers must do tasks with reasonable care and competence, within a reasonable timeframe (if a specific completion date has not been agreed upon), and at a fair cost, as stipulated by the Supply of Goods And Services Act (SGSA) of 1982. When it first came out, it was an honest attempt to better protect customers.

As part of the service, any materials or items provided must likewise be of acceptable quality. There are several similarities between the SGSA and the Sale of Goods Act in this regard. The service provider is in breach of contract if they fail to satisfy these standards, and the buyer can take legal action to ensure that the job is completed appropriately or to recoup any monies spent.

These three laws have been merged and a single legislation of Consumer Protection Act, 2015 was introduced.

References

Ramsay, I., 2012. Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Riefa, C. and Willett, C., 2018. Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law in the UK. In Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law (pp. 673-695). Springer, Cham.

Cases

Abbey National Plc v The Office of Fair Trading [2009] UKSC 6; [2010] 1 A.C. 696

BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809

Jewson ltd v Leanne Teresa Boyhan [2003]

Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 416

Legislation

The Sale of Goods Act, 1979

The Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977

The Consumer Protection Act, 2015

The Supply of Goods And Services Act 1982