Consumer Law in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Consumer Law in the UK It is undeniable that consumer protection against harmful products is one of the primary objectives of any government. The case “A and others v The National Blood Authority and others [2001]” remains a landmark case in UK and an overwhelming development in regard to consumer protection. The case stemmed from major concerns when approximately 14,000 people contracted a disease called Hepatitis C due to irregularities in blood and blood products transfusion. From the case proceedings and the evidence presented in regard to the case, it was succinctly clear that several factors were to be considered particularly in relation to human knowledge on hepatitis C and more importantly the level of commitment by the National Blood Authority in ensuring safety during blood transfusion (Williamson web). Indeed, the case of A and others v National Blood Authority and another became a landmark and certainly the first case in UK for being the first case in UK to succeed against the producer of a medical product. The Consumer Protection Act arising from this case certainly gained much footing and has since remained relatively unchanged with time. However, several other cases seem to enforce rather than change consumer law in UK. It is worth noting, however, that the case of A and others v National Blood Authority and another gained strong ground based on the fact that consumer protection was viewed from what the consumers are entitled to expect as opposed to the reasonable ability of the producer in delivering safe products. In the case of Worsley v Tambrands Ltd, Worsley argued that tampons manufactured by Tambrands were defective since the manufacturer did not provide clear warnings regarding the risk of toxic shock syndrome. However, this argument was rejected by the court based on the argument that defectiveness of products is based on minimum standards (Howells and Weatherill 241-243). Therefore, the developments of Worsley v Tambrands Ltd’s case only affirmed the basis of consumer protection Act developed from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. One of the most recent cases BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] seemed to bring a new twist to consumer protection Act. In this case, the important factor to be put into consideration is the obligation of the manufacturer to furnish the user with adequate information concerning the use and compatibility of a product (Bicknell web). However, this case seems to strengthen rather than change the provisions arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. The court ruling seemed to underpin the obligation of the manufacturer to provide adequate information on use of products. This had already been coined in the earlier case A and others v National Blood Authority and another. Another, yet very recent case, Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and security Plc [2011] also mirrored the already established consumer protection Act. According to the, the purchasers arguments CO2 fire suppression system they had purchased for their popcorn machinery in the factory was not fit for purpose. According to the case ruling, they failed to adequately notify the supplier of the intended use of the product they purchased and therefore, they could not have relied upon the supplier’s technical skills and reasonable judgment (Bailii web). However, a more interesting case Ide v ATB Sales Ltd (2007), provided a deeper mirror on consumer protection Act. From the case proceedings, the Judge posited that fatigue cracking was a probable cause of the fracture leading to the accident of the victim. However, proof of failure of the product during normal use had to be supplied adequately (Sweet and Maxwell web). The ruling in this case did not actually change any aspect of consumer protection Act arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another but to the contrary, only seemed to coin what had already been put forward. However, there seemed to be a slight difference in that the supplier in this case may not have prior knowledge on possible defects of any harm to the consumer. The court may rely on the fact that the supplier ought to have scientific and technical knowledge on the safety of consumer products. This is also augmented by the obligation of the supplier to meet the set product standards as well as meeting the expectations the consumers are entitled to expect as underpinned in A and others v National Blood Authority and another (Queens Bench Division web). The Product Liability Directive of 1985 provides the much needed cushion to protect consumers against defective products. According to the directive, a product can be said to be defective in instances where it fails to provide the safety, which the user is entitled to expect putting into consideration all circumstances time, reasonableness as well as presentation. However, the consumer of the product must provide adequate proof of the actual damage arising from normal use of the product, the defect present in the product as well as a link between the damage and the defect (Linger 480-489). However, the producers are at times exempted from the liability in instances where, the product was for nonprofit purposes, product not in circulation, defect stems from standards compliance and most importantly, scientific and technical knowledge at time of manufacture was inadequate to notice the defect. The complainant has, however, a three-year window from the time of acknowledgement of the damage and the defect up to the time of seeking compensation (Floudas web). On the other hand, the producer may not be held liable if the product caused damage after 10 years after the product was put into circulation (Linger 480-489). An important case supporting The Product Liability Directive of 1985 is Ide v ATB Sales Ltd. In this case, all the evidence led to the judge believing that there was indeed a defect in the handlebar and that the defect was the cause of the fracture leading to the accident (Sweet and Maxwell web). Therefore, the supplier of the product was held liable as provided in The Product Liability Directive of 1985. Works Cited Bailii. Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security Plc [2011] EWHC 1936 (TCC) (22 July 2011). Retrieved http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2011/1936.html Bicknell, Paul. BSS Group plc -v- Makers (UK) Limited (t/a Allied Services) [2011] - Court of Appeal. Retrieved http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/13513-PB-BSS-Group-makers-limited-sale-of-goods-act.htm Floudas, Demetrius. Some Aspects of Liability for Defective Products in England, France and Greece after Directive 85/374/Eec. Retrieved http://www.intersticeconsulting.com/documents/Product_Liability_EU.pdf Howells, Geraint, and Weatherill, Stephen. Consumer Protection Law. Aldershot [u.a.: Ashgate, 2005. Print. Linger, Lori. The Products Liability Directive: A Mandatory Development Risks Defense. Fordham International Law Journal. Vol 14, 1990. Issue 2 Retrieved http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=ilj Queens Bench Division. A and others v The National Blood Authority and others [2001]. Retrieved http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international/2001/Part03/int2001%283%29-009.htm Sweet and Maxwell. IDE v ATB Sales Ltd Lexus Finacial Services T/A Toyota Financial Services Uk Plc V Russell. [2008] EWCA Civ 424; [2008] P.I.Q.R. P13. Retrieved http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/424.html Williamson, Shanti. Compensation for Infected Blood Products: A and others v National Blood Authority and Another. Retrieved http://www.ejcl.org/75/art75-5.PDF Read More