Consumer Protection Essay Example

later emerged that the defendant breached their duty through deceitful practices, negligence, and improper conduct. The firearm in question did not originate from its claimed manufacturer and lacked security measures.
Instead, the maker produced it in an unsatisfactory manner using substandard materials, resulting in its lack of safety and presenting a substantial hazard.

It seems that the lens door mechanism was too heavy. It is unclear why the chemist or manufacturer did not notice this if Avril and Alan did. The defense may argue that Alan was negligent and contributed to his injury by not being careful when changing the film. This is called contributory negligence. An independent body would need to verify if this is true, as it would be a valid defense if proven. The defense may also claim that sufficient measures were taken to ensure customer safety and cannot be held responsible for how customers treat the camera. In Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball while standing on the highway outside her home near a cricket ground.

The House of Lords held that the defendant was not liable for the incident. They argued that the defendant had taken

reasonable care, as the top of the fence surrounding the ground was seven feet above the highway and seventeen feet above the pitch. If it can be proved that the camera was well-built enough to make the incident a rare occurrence, then it may be a substantial defense. Therefore, questions must be asked regarding whether the camera was of 'satisfactory quality' according to the Sale Of Goods Act of 1979. Section 14 of the Act states that goods must be of a merchantable quality, meaning that the materials used must be reasonably fit for their commonly supplied purpose.

The main focus is on the functionality and safety of goods. The goods should be suitable for their intended purpose, functioning properly, and meeting the standard expectations for goods of that kind. It is crucial to determine if the goods are safe to use or pose any risks. If the goods are faulty, defective, unsafe, or dangerous and do not operate under normal conditions, it means that the supplier has violated this implied condition. According to Section 14(3) of the act, if the buyer informs the seller of a specific purpose for the goods, they must be appropriate for that purpose unless the buyer did not rely on the seller's expertise. This situation parallels Priest v Last [1903] 2KB 148 case where a hot water bottle was purchased. In that case, it was ruled by the court that the bottle had to be suitable for its obvious purpose - warming a bed. As it turned out, since the bottle bursted it was deemed inappropriate for its intended purpose.

The fitness for purpose factor is important when the buyer has

specific or unusual requirements. However, in this particular situation, it does not apply because the product is simply a camera designed solely for photography purposes. The only case where this might be relevant is if something other than film was inserted into the camera or incorrect batteries were used, but neither of these situations occurred. When the complaint was made, the manager of the chemist referred to the small text written on the camera. In this instance, there may be grounds for legal action since exclusion clauses in contracts and non-contractual notices are regulated by the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977. The exclusion clause could be present in an unsigned document like a ticket or notice, and in such cases, sufficient and reasonable notice of its existence must be given.

The requirement to meet this condition necessitates including the clause in a contractual document. This means that it should be included in a document that a reasonable person would assume to contain contractual terms, instead of a document that simply acknowledges payment (such as a receipt). The case of Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940 1KB 532) exemplifies this stipulation, where the plaintiff rented a deckchair from the defendant for use on the beach.

The plaintiff paid an attendant and got a ticket, but then got injured when the chair he was sitting on collapsed. The ticket had an exclusion clause on its back that the plaintiff didn't read. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the ticket was more of a receipt than a contract with contractual terms. Therefore, the exclusion clause didn't hold up and the defendants were held responsible.

Therefore, in the case of Alan,

it could be argued that the exclusion clause was printed on the back of a receipt and therefore not considered a contractual document containing contractual terms. Furthermore, the exclusion notice was brought to Alan's attention after he purchased the camera and was only highlighted when a complaint was made, thus violating the second part of the Acts policy on unsigned documents, which states that the existence of the exclusion clause must be made known to the other party before or at the time the contract is entered into.

This is exemplified in Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532, where the plaintiff discovered a notice stating that the hotel would not be held responsible for property only after they had already checked in and had their fur coat stolen. The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant could not rely on the exclusion clause because it was not a term of t

According to regulation 4, a standard form contract may be deemed unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the consumer's detriment, thereby violating the requirement of good faith. The chemist provides two examples illustrating this: firstly, terms that bind the consumer but not the seller or supplier, and secondly, terms that require the consumer to fulfill their obligations while the seller or supplier does not. In this case, the chemist denies any fault for Alan's damaged photographs, while Alan holds the chemist responsible for the damage. Additionally, Alan paid for the photographs under the expectation that they would be produced without any defects. The chemist failed to fulfill this expectation and therefore breached the contract.

In the case

of Sumpter v Hedges 1898 1 673, a builder agreed to construct houses for an agreed lump sum. However, the builder was only able to partially complete the work due to financial difficulties. Consequently, the builder initiated legal proceedings to receive payment for the work already performed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the builder was not eligible for payment since he had not fulfilled his contractual obligations.

According to this, Alan can expect a refund for the photographs as the chemist did not fulfill their part of the contract, while Alan fulfilled his side by making a payment. The chemist's acceptance of the payment indicates agreement to the contract, allowing Alan to take this case to court. Although he did not purchase the camera, he is still considered the ultimate consumer in terms of legal rights. Despite using the camera for its intended purpose, he was injured in doing so. It may be more reasonable to bring a case against the chemist for their failure to compensate for the injury or replace the camera.

The chemist has not addressed the injury to Alan, as the exclusion clause only mentions liability for loss or damage rather than injury caused by damage. Introducing the complaint about the photographs may not be advisable, as it may divert attention from the main objective of seeking compensation for the injury caused by the camera. However, it could be used as supplementary evidence to demonstrate how Alan, the customer, has been treated by the seller.