Consumer Law in the UK - Assignment Example

?Consumer Law (UK) INTRODUCTION Consumers are the most important aspects for any kind of business. The success as well as failure of the business is directly dependent on the approach and preferences of the customers. As rightly said, “Customers are the king” and have the topmost priority in any business sustainability concerns. However, at often instances, unfair business processes are conducted to obtain extra profits by committing unethical conducts. In this regard, it would be worth mentioning that there are few rights of the customers that cannot be ignored. In order to safeguard the interest of the consumers, government of every country have enforced certain laws or rights that would enable them to fight against any kind of injustice. These legal enactments are termed under the provision of consumer laws with the sole intention to protect consumers from any kind of harm caused by the fraudulent activities of businesses. There are various contracts in which consumer laws are applicable which commonly include contract of buying goods, distance selling, services contract and other areas such as holiday packages and insurance among others. Notably, if consumers are affected due to any sort of fraud in the aforementioned areas, they can take the assistance of such law provisions (Consumer rights) to deal with such situations. There are various acts that collectively fall under the consumer law dimension such as the Sales of Goods Act 1979, Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Credit Act 1974 among others (Bryan 11-12). THESIS STATEMENT The thesis discusses a certain case giving rise to situations for the implementation of consumer law. The aim of the thesis is therefore to recommend the victims of certain fraudulent activities of businesses about their rights based on the consumer law of UK. The thesis further depicts the criminal liability of the company involved in the breach of statutory provisions. CASE OVERVIEW It was in March 2003 that Ajay decided to book a holiday trip to Cornwall. The decision came after Ajay saw a brochure of the Sunshine Holiday Plc. The hotel that Ajay choose as part of the holiday package was described in the brochure as one of the exclusive hotels of Cornwall and further portrayed as breathtaking and best suited for a restful holiday. Furthermore, the brochure also described that the hotel has heated swimming pools both in its indoor and outdoor that would provide extraordinary experiences to the visitors. The brochure of the company further promised car services for the visitors in the hotel to allow them to enjoy all the entertainment facilities that would be available in the nearby town. In the brochure, the company also described about the additional offers to the visitors, if the tour is booked within the last week of March. The additional offers would included holiday insurance for the entire family, return couch travel and free car services among others were mentioned quite precisely in the brochure. On arrival of Ajay and his family in that particular hotel, they found out that it was on the top of the cliff and there was no easy access to the beach from that place. There was also lot of noise that came out in early morning from the bar of the hotels and created immense disturbances for the visitors. It has also been observed by Ajay and his family that both the indoor and outdoor swimming pools of the hotel were unavailable for some reason and car services of the hotel was also discontinued since the previous year. Furthermore, he also found out that in regard to the holiday insurance package promised by the hotel authority in the brochure, Ajay and his family was charged a considerable amount in spite of the fact that it was supposed to be free of cost as was mentioned. Subsequently, Ajay complained about the entire issue to the hotelier but they pointed out a clause in the brochure which stated as “hotel and other charges may be revised at the discretion of the Tour Operator”. Later, Ajay’s wife, while buying a leather bag from the hotel shop found out that it was not real leather and the scratches on it proved it to be used contradicting the tagged information. They denied refunding the money to Rachel and gave her a credit note instead stating that the goods on sale in the Hotel were not subjected to refund. CONSUMER LAW UK Consumer law can be defined as the legal area which concentrates on rendering protection to the consumers of a country when they buy a particular product and/or service. This is one significant part of the legal system of UK that is designed in order to ensure that whenever consumers buy a particular kind of product or service, they are protected from any kind issues or fraud or misspelling of goods. This law was introduced to make certain about a fair and ethical transaction between a seller and a buyer (Safety Net Systems Ltd, “Consumer Law”). There are several different aspects of the consumer law that the consumers ought to have a complete understanding. In this regard Sales of Goods Act 1979 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are one of the aspects that is significant to be discussed about the consumer law than can be enforced in the context of Ajay and Rachel’s case example. The Sales of Goods Act 1979 provides the consumers, some statutory rights when they buy a particular product or service. According to this Act, any product a consumer buys should be fit for the purpose for which it is being bought. The quality of the product should also be similar to the description that was given before the product was bought. Again, in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is another part of the consumer law, the rights of the consumers about the purchase of goods are stated. According to this act, retailers must provide complete details about the product, service and its cost along with the terms of delivery wherein it is the sole duty of the consumers to verify all the necessary information prior their ultimate purchase. The other statutory provision under the consumer law which can be related with the case example of Ajay and Rachel is the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This act specifies the rights of the consumer during the involvement of a credit agreement while purchasing. In accordance to the contents of this act, the credit agreement between a buyer and a supplier must contain the amount of the credit, information regarding the payment and the charges of the credit. Notably, these aspects are obligatory in the credit agreement (Safety Net Systems Ltd, “Consumer Law”). RECOMMENDATIONS TO AJAY AND RACHEL Apparently, there are numerous acts designed especially for the assistance for the consumers in their purchase of goods, both ethically and legally. In this regard, the given case study would be a perfect example of fraud with consumers in regard to procurement of goods and/or services. It can be observed from the case study that Ajay and his family was cheated by the Hotel authority by not providing the services that were promised or mentioned in the brochure of the company. The scenario was completely different for Ajay and his family when they reached the hotel in person and found out that it was no where similar to what was described in the brochure of the company. This issue can be remitted under the Sales of Goods Act 1979. According to section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, products or services sold by a company must match up to the portrayal of it as informed to the buyer during promotion. However, in this case, the company fails to deliver the promised or mentioned product. In this regard the case of Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd can be referred as a good illustration. In that case the buyer bought a painting which he later identified to be created by another painter rather than the one mentioned in the promotional information. After the delivery of the painting to the buyer, it was found that it was fake and consequently, the entire issue was registered under section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979 where it was clearly mentioned that the quality of the goods must match up to what has been described before the product was bought. In case of Ajay too, the product delivered to him and his family by the company does not correspond to what was described in the brochure. For this breach of the company, Ajay and his family can reject the goods and/or services delivered to them by the company. Furthermore, they can also demand compensation from the company for such misconduct. In this case the company is liable to pay full refund to the consumer even if mentioned otherwise in the company’s promotional information. Moreover, if in any case, Ajay and his family are not ready to cancel the trip, they can also ask for a better replacement of the entire package in accordance with their right under the Sales of Goods Act 1979 s. 13 (Office of Fair trading, “Sales of Goods Act Explained”). Furthermore, in accordance to section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, unsatisfied buyer can file a case against the faulty product only within six months from the day of its ultimate purchase. In this case, Ajay had booked the tour in March 2013 and in the month of June of the same year he found out that the product of the company was not at all similar to what was being promised. It could be seen that the product involved in this case is identified to be faulty within 3 months of its purchase. Contextually, Ajay and his family also have the right to file a case against the company for the breach. The case of Niagara Grain Co. v. Reno, 1916 can be illustrated in this context where the deal between the two parties was considered completely broken due to the non-performance of one of the parties that was considered as a breach of warranty. Likewise, Ajay also have the option to file the entire issue as a breach of condition and can cancel the deal and ask for refund of the entire amount paid. Additionally, Ajay and his family can also take the assistance of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where they could ask for compensation or full refund on the ground that due to this faulty trip, their holidays were spoiled along with their precious time without gaining any of the promised and the desired experiences (Crown, “Sale of Goods Act 1979”; Crown, “Consumer Protection Act 1987”). Additionally, it has also been noted from the provided case study that some issues were raised regarding the purchase of a leather bag by Rachel from the hotel shop. She found that the bag she bought was not real leather and was also seemed to be used with some scratches on it. However, while buying the bag, Rachel was told that it was made of real leather and it is of high quality. Not been satisfied with the product, she asked for total refund of the amount from the shop but refused to pay it on grounds that they do not provide refund on sales of goods which was already mentioned on the tag. In this case, it can be seen that the entire will fall under the Sales of Goods Act 1979. As the product was not similar to what was described and not fit for use consumer can ask for total refund. The section 14 of Sales of Goods Act 1979 stated that the consumer has the right to judge the quality of the product and consider its fitness for his/her use (Office of Fair trading, “Sales of Goods Act Explained”). In case of Rachel, she found that the quality of the bag was not good and could not be used by her. In relation to this section, 15B of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, the consumer (Rachel) can claim for damage or refund on the ground of breach of material and can reject the entire transaction. Section 14 of the Act hereby affirms that the liability of the seller in this regard is quite strict and will not depend on his/her proof of the fault. This can be related with the case of Stevenson v Rogers (1999) 1 All ER 613. Furthermore, in accordance to section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, Rachel can also ask for the similar replacement of the bag with high quality or partial repair of the bag. Contextually, it can be observed that Ajay and his family will have various options to negotiate with the company regarding the entire issue under the provisions of Sales of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Office of Fair trading, “Sales of Goods Act Explained”; Nourse & Smith, “564 Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd”; Crown, “Sale of Goods Act 1979”; Stevenson v Rogers, “Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 Court of Appeal”). CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY From the analysis of the entire case it has been learnt that Ajay and his family was cheated by the company by not providing adequate information about what was specified in its brochure. In this case, the company can also fall under criminal obligation. As stated in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, if a seller advertises a misleading price or characteristics of a particular product, it would be considered as a criminal offence. In this case, the company misleads and encourages Ajay and his family by presenting attractive features of the hotel which was not actually present in the real experience. In this regard, the company would be considered as liable for a fraudulent conduct and a criminal offence and will be punishable under the Unfair Trading Regulation 2008. This particular legal provision or Act instructs the companies or business to operate fairly. Furthermore, in regard to the issues related to the purchase of bag by Rachel, it has been observed that the hotel denied to repay Rachel on the ground of written information which stated the company to be free from any obligation to refund the good once sold. In relation to this particular Act, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 states that any seller who attempt to display a sign of no refund after sell will be considered unfair and a criminal offence. These aspects can be justified as the grounds which form the criminal liability of the hotel (Trading Standards, “Buying Goods- Your Rights”). CONCLUSION From the overall study it can be observed that Consumer law or rights are quite beneficial for the consumers to effectively deal with unfair, unethical or illegal issues related to the purchase of any kind of product and/or service from dealers, retailers or directly from companies. It has been noted in this regard that Ajay and his family were cheated by Sunshine Holiday plc by not providing the product that was desired by them or that was promised by the company in the real experience. It has further been analysed that there were many options for Ajay and his family to negotiate with the company under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Sales of Goods Act 1979 of the UK. Similarly, in another case where Rachel bought a bag from the hotel shop and found it to be of poor quality, she can take the assistance of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Sales of Goods Act 1979 to deal with the unfair activity of the shop. Furthermore, it has also been depicted that in both the issues, the culprit, i.e. Sunshine Holiday plc can fall under legal obligations under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1987, Sales of Goods Act 1979 and the Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 which also defines the criminal liabilities of the company. Works Cited Bryan, David. A Straightforward Guide to the Rights of the Consumer. Brighton: Straightforward Co Ltd, 2004. Print. “Consumer Protection Act 1987.” The National Achieves. Crown, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. “Sale of Goods Act 1979.” The National Achieves. Crown, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. Nourse, Slade, and Stuart Smith. 564 Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd. International University Collage, 1989. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. “The Sales of Goods Act Explained.” Office of Fair Trading. Sale of Goods Act, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. “The Consumers’ Safety Net.” Insurance Guaranty Associations in Connecticut. CT.Gov. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. Stevenson v Rogers, Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 Court of Appeal. e-lawresources. Law Resources, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. “Buying Goods- Your Rights.” Advice. Trading Standards. 2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. Read More