Consumers and the Law - Essay Example

? “Law 2050 Consumers and the Law” When a consumer buys a product or service making a payment for it, it necessarily means that the purpose of buyingthe good or services are served. The last thing that a person can expect is to get a damaged or a defective product. The quality of the product is a vital issue of concern. The claim should match the description that the manufacturer or seller. Otherwise it is not just to sell a product that does not meet the customer expectation and purpose. It would be called cheating then. Hence, today in order to protect the rights of the customers who are the consumers of the product and services, we have the consumer rights. The consumer Rights says that if a customer buys a product and is not satisfied with the quality or if it does not fit into the requirement of using the product or has a false claim, then he has the right to recourse either by getting the product repaired, replaced or a refunded depending on the concern and the degree of dissatisfaction by the customer. These rights also cover service contracts and online shopping also. The Abuzaid vs. Mother Care U.K. Ltd is a perfect example of violation of Consumer Rights. To understand the main issues of the case, a brief summary of the history describing the background is essential. The product, Cosy toes which is a sleeping bag which is primarily used for children and infants to attach the elastic straps with the push-chair, was brought by the mother of the claimant for his brother. It consisted on two elastic straps which were supposed to be fastened around the arm chair securing the back of the person. The elastic strap (almost 7-8 inches long) had to be joined with the metal buckle. While attaching the buckle of the straps to the chair, the elastic straps slipped past the hand and the buckle had made a direct hit in his eye thereby causing a permanent injury. The accident was so serious that he had to be immediately taken to the emergency department of the hospital by ambulance. Hence, after nearly escaping to loose one’s sight a positive step to appeal for the Consumer Protection law was taken. A case was filed against Mothercare Ltd, UK under the Consumer Protection Act and the claim against damage under the Common Law of negligence on the part of the seller of the good. It was claimed that the cause of the injury was primarily because of the ‘defective’ nature of the product and the manufacturer of the producer should have been sensitive enough to foresee such implications causing such serious damage to the individual and hence the negligent claim was made under the Common law of negligence. The Common law of negligence states that if any individual has suffered an injury due to the negligence of another person. However, certain conditions need to be made to substantiate the clause of the Act. The ‘plaintiff’ must be able to substantiate proofs like failure to establish reasonable care, damages that has been made which is other than economic losses. Thus in order to be eligible for this claim the claimant has to provide proofs that the individual had suffered proofs that the individual had suffered personal injury or loss which was evitable as per the claim of Abouzaid ,the sufferer of the accident.. The defendant on the other hand claimed that the incident that had occurred was a sort of ‘contributory negligence’ on the part of the claimant. According to this Act the defence can retort on the claim made by the claimant on negligence that the damage or injury was cause to the individual due to his or her own personal negligence and hence the manufacturer or the seller of the particular product could not be blamed or penalised for it. Mother care agued that the product cannot be claimed to be defective in the first instance. This is because when the particular product was made available to the customers, no such previous instances of injury had been reported. Further, at the time when the accident had occurred, in 1990, the consumers could also not expect quite understandably and reasonably that the particular design of the product was faulty and has to be changed. No such demands were also cited from the end of the consumers and the producers supposed that the product was quite acceptable. Further, the defendant Mother care claimed that even if the product was defective, the producer or manufacturer of the product is protected on account of “developmental risk” defence which is listed in section 4(1) of the act that if proper development of scientific and other technical knowledge was not capable enough to understand the implications and complexity if such product usage, then the producer would not be responsible and liable for the defect of the product. Further, it was argued that the producer could not be blamed for negligible action. The unfortunate incident occurred due to the careless and negligent behaviour of an individual. It was like a man crossing the road without checking the traffic signals. Therefore Mother Care appealed to the court in defence of the case claiming that the producers and manufactures does not have the product liability in the particular instance and nor was the incident, an act of negligence on the part of the producer. In fact it was mere carelessness on the part of the claimant, an individual and the company i.e. the producer and the manufacturer of the product is no legally entitled for any compensation to the claimant. Further, an expert Engineer was arranged in 1990, which had agreed that no producers could possible make out the potential risk and damage that the product. However, it was agreed that the particular product did possess safety defect and unless substantial warning is stated for product usage and risk hazards, such products should not be sold. In this perspective it is important to state the verdict of the trial judge in the lower court. The judgement given in the lower court went in the favour of the claimant stating that Mother care is liable to take the responsibility of the injury caused because of the use of the product. It altogether had rejected the argument provided by the defence team regarding contributory negligence. However, there were some grey shades in the judgement given. (Commercial Angles Newsletter, July, 2001) It is mainly because the statement given by the trial judge was unclear. It did not specify whether the judgement given was based as per the Consumer Protection Act of 1987 or Common negligence law. Also whether strict liability of product governed by the consumer protection act was applicable or not was not articulated. Hence there was another appeal made in the Court of Appeal for a concrete resolution. The appeal was made from the side of the defence team-Mother Care U.K. Ltd that the incident was an accident and there was no negligence issue on the part of the manufacturer. Finally the Court of Appeal had given the final verdict. The court accepted the fact that the particular product was defective. Now stating a product as defective in the legal sense has a serious meaning. According to the section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, a product can be termed as defective when certain conditions are fulfilled. First the product can be called defective if the product is not safe to and there is a safety issue while handling the product which was not expected by the purchaser. In the particular case, when the product Cosytoes was purchased the purchaser had no idea that such consequences would occur. The claimant had stated that the incident mainly occurred due to the nature of the elastic straps and the buckle fitted to it. So the product was proved to have the particular constituted defect. The respondent argued that during that period of time in 1990 no such risk and safety issue was neither reported or could have occurred was refuted by the judgement that the risk of product risk and safety issue had remained unchanged over the period of time. So, it the product is considered as risky or defective to use, it would be same in 1990, 1999 even in 2011 until and unless the constituted defect are taken care and warnings regarding the proper use of product usage is given. Mother care in response to this said that during that time proper development in scientific as well as technological fields have not taken place and so Mother care could not be help the responsibility of product liability. To this response, the court clearly stated that whether a particular product is reported to be defective or whether technological advancement was made possible during that time has in fact no relation with the development of scientific knowledge of that tenure. Had the product been tested properly in practical demonstration, before selling, it would have been a simple and practical matter to be easily detected and solved. There is practically no rocket science to this. However, in the final verdict of the Court of Appeal, the claim of common law of negligence could not be applied to the particular case since it was proved that it was beyond the anticipation of any manufacturers of that time to identify such serious safety issue while using the product. Hence there was ‘no breach of law issue’. (Contact Law, “Common Law of Negligence,” 2010) However the court also gave the ruling that the claimant could not be blamed on the ground of personal negligence and the respondent , Mother care could not get the benefit of doubt of ‘ developmental hazard’ as per Article 4(1) of the Act .Thus the argument of Mother care on this ground was rejected. Finally there were several conclusions that were drawn in the final statement of the court of Appeal. First, ‘Strict liability’ was applicable as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 on the part of the manufacturer, seller, Mother Care U.K. This means that if a consumer is injured while using the product, the seller cannot shake hands off the responsibility and claim that it was a personal negligence of the user and the seller is not responsible for it. Moreover, the producer or manufacturer would be still under the preview of product liability even when the product usage risk and hazards could not be sighted at the time when the product was sold to the customer. (Brad gate: Commercial Law: 3e, 2005). Further, the development defense that was claimed by the respondent could also not be applicable since there was not such phenomenal change in the developmental and technological advancement during the period from 1990-1999.Last and most importantly the ruling stated that the consumer expectation is one of the key aspect and area of Consumer Protection. Though expectation is something that cannot be measured, still due respect needs to be given for the fact that when a customer buys a particular product making a payment for using the particular good or service, he definitely has some expectations about the quality and usability of the product or service. The laws of the UK are the custodians of the citizen’s rights. Laws and Acts are legal requirements and if it is not enforced properly then it would lead to anarchy. The Consumers law in the U.K. is a projection of governmental power. This is made to uphold and protect the rights of the citizens and to prevent any misuse or fowl play in business transactions. The Consumer law necessitates such legal responsibility of the sellers, manufactures and traders while selling the goods and services to the consumers, the real buyers. According to the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, Part 1, the traders and manufactures shoulders the responsibility of ‘product liability’ in case of ‘damage’ or any other defects caused due to the use of the product. The product Liability of Consumer Protection Act is absolute and strict and it is clearly mentioned in Part 1 and 2 of the Act. The Damage as enlisted in the act includes damage being Fatal, Personal Injury of the claimant and damage to the property which is of private use. Now if we site the instance for the case of The Abuzaid vs. Mother Care U.K. Ltd, we can clearly deduce that the claimant did use his rights accurately. For the use of the particular product was risky and caused injury to the eye-sight permanently. While analysing the cited case of Abuzaid v. Mother Care U.K. several other such product liability case can be sighted in the recent times. One such case was Burton J. v National Blood Authority (26 March, 2001). The main case was that the claimant had received “blood products that was infected with Hepatitis C virus.” In this regard the Judge had to consider primarily two concerns. First, whether the product could be termed as defective as per the Consumer Protection Act and secondly if there was any development risk issue that the defence would get the protection to avoid the ‘product liability’ claim of the claimant. Fortunately both the issues were handled well and the final verdict was given in the favour of the claimant. In the final analysis is can be stated that both the mentioned case had received the judgement in favour of the claimant who was the victims of using the defective product. If this trend is going to be followed then probably we would find a more responsible producer and conscious consumers of goods and services. However two more cases can be sighted in this regard. One case is Richardson v LRC Products (2000) and the other F.V.Boisil Ltd (200) NLJ 1780. In both these, judgement could not be given in favour of the claimant since sufficient proofs of claiming the product ‘ defective’ could not be substantiated. This also proves that for the consumers to be protected under the Act of 1987, sufficient awareness and consciousness has to be made. Recently it has also been questioned that while the consumers are the real receivers of the products or services that he has paid for why does a customer need to prove ‘negligence’ in order to claim his Consumers rights? In fact, there can be safety issue as well as serious health issues like the case of was Burton J. v National Blood Authority (26 March, 2001).Arguments would continue and one cannot immediately expect resolutions since there would always be some grey areas in the legal systems. More positively, today with the technological development as well as the consciousness amongst people we have various means to address the consumer’s need. The online supports are very user friendly and helpful to quickly access all information and current rules and regulations does protect and uphold the rights of the consumers today. As we become more advanced and developed consciousness and awareness have taken us ahead to identify such concerns immediately and take appropriate steps. Works Cited: 1) Commercial Angles' Newsletter (July 2001). Abouzaid v. Mother care (UK) Ltd., N.P. web http://www.tradeangles.fsbusiness.co.uk/articles/product_liability.htm\ 2) Bradgate: Commercial Law: 3e, Chapter 13: Manufacturers and product liability, Oxford University Press, 2005. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780406916037/resources/updates/0105/ch13.pdf 3) Consumer right- an introduction, Directgov, web, n.p. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/index.htm 4) All England Reporter, [2000] All ER (D) 2436, Court of Appeal, Civil Division. 5) Contact Law, “Common Law of Negligence”, web, np, http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/common- law-negligence.html Updated as per 21/05/2010 publication. 6) Just answer. Consumer Protection Law, web, n.p. http://www.justanswer.com/consumer- Protection-law/4pv7i-issues-2011-ford-explorer-purchased-30Jan11-when.html 7) Adviceguide.org – (27 April 2011) web, n p. 8) Free Case Resources-http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm, web, Lawtell, Westlaw@ UK, Justcite (2011). 9) ConsumerLaw.co.uk - SafetyNet Systems Ltd, web, n.p. 10) Consumer Law Review-web, n.p. www.bis.gov.uk/files/file45196.pdf. (May, 2008). Department of Business Enterprise& Regulatory Reforms. 11) Lawdit readingroom-“Consumer Law”- www.bis.gov.uk/files/file45196.pdf (2010) 12) The Guardian-“Faulty goods? You have still got rights when the guarantee runs out”-( Saturday 25 March 2006). Read More