Consumer Protection - Research Proposal Example

Title: Consumer Protection Introduction Consumer protection refers to the protection of consumers’ interests either by the government imposing regulations on businesses or the customer himself or herself being crafty enough as not to be easily duped. The first could take the form of a requirement by the government from all businesses to reveal comprehensive information about their products and services, more so in cases involving food products. The second form on the other hand may heavily lean on the consumers’ level of education. It is common knowledge that education is the first line of defense against fraud and deception simply because it can help an individual make well-informed decision before spending his or her money (Gormley, 2006). Consumer protection is thus all about rights and associations 1 of a consumer to various consumer organisations formed to assist them make better choices in the marketplace. 1. The consumer is entitled to freedom of affiliation to various bodies and agencies formed to collectively safeguard the interests of consumers. Promotion of competition among the market players is yet another very health way of ensuring protection of consumer interests. This is basically because goods and services will be of superior quality as opposed to if there were no competition. In case a consumer is offered inferior products at prices that are exorbitant, the consumer should file a complaint (Gormley, 2006). This is the action that was taken by Richard Williams when he contacted Wise and Wise Solicitors for assistance. As a trainee solicitor with Wise and Wise solicitors, I am instructed by my supervisor, Margaret Andrews to interview the company’s new client, Mr. Richard Williams and then report my findings back to her. Below is my report which contains two main sections. The first section deals with the items Mr. Williams purchased from Bobbys local garden centre and his legal position. The second part on the other hand is likewise going to handle those items purchased by our client from Mr. Stanley Robinson. Items purchased from Bobbys and Mr. William’s legal position After interviewing our new client Mr. Richard Williams, I have been able to establish that he recently moved into a new house whose garden is in need of some landscaping. For him to carry out this task successfully, he needed some items he could only get from Bobbys, his local garden centre. At the garden centre, he paid for the items by cheque. Among these items was a Venus de Milo Statue, which he decided to take home with him in his car. He arranged for the other items to be delivered later. Incidentally, it emerged later that the Venus de Milo Statue had been sold to another customer and Bobbys needed our client to take it back to the store for a refund of the full purchase price. Legally, this is not what our client had bargained for. The statue is one of the objects excluded from the laws of price fraud 2 because it does not have a standardised price (Howells & Wilhelmsson, 1997). An object lacking a standard price is referred to as an object of exclusion 3 (Boom & Loos, 2007). Thus to determine the right amount of refund involving an object of exclusion becomes a weighty obligation. But on the other hand, the law provides that the society has an obligation to protect the consumer. There is a great assertion that the seller should not deceive the consumer either by concealing any imperfection or suppressing any relevant information about the item being sold (Sadeleer, 2006). In the case of Mr. Williams, there is no blemish in the item itself and thus virtually the consumer has no basis to claim that he has not received what he settled to purchase. Therefore it is my advice to our client that he stays put with the Statue as it is rightfully his (Howells & Wilhelmsson, 1997). Mr. Richard Williams also purchased thirty Winchester paving stones which were not available for him to examine at the time of purchasing 4. The law requires that a consumer must examine goods before purchasing and then complain immediately if there is anything to complain about (Lando, 2006). In this case, Mr. Williams erred because he paid for the paving stones without having had a chance to examine them. 2. Price fraud occurs when a disparity exists between the price received for the object and the market price. The correct price is officially set by the authorities or is the prevailing price in the marketplace, and one of the sides to the transaction is not aware that he is paying more or receiving less than that price. 3. Implies not to special people but to special objects such as ornaments where an individual can be assumed to be willing to pay more for it than the market price. 4. The law requires a consumer to very carefully examine an item before committing to purchase it. According to Sadeleer (2006), the length of time a consumer has to make sure whether commodities are faulty depends on what is reasonable for whatever merchandise is involved. For instance, it takes longer for one to check out a speedboat than a kettle (Lando, 2006). On the other hand however, one should really try and complain within seven days if the product is faulty. If this is done, then a full refund of the purchase price is justified. But if it is left any longer than seven days and providing the goods were faulty when being bought, then the consumer’s right to a full refund may be lost. Nevertheless one is still entitled to a replacement, a reduction, or an appraisal note (Sadeleer, 2006). By law a consumer has up to six years to make a complaint, but this doesn't denote goods must last six years, they must last what nearly everyone would consider to be a ‘practical' length of time. So if there is wear and tear that breaks the manufactured good then the possibility is as a consumer, one has no claim (Shears,2007). Yet if it was an unreasonable fault, the consumer has a claim. If there is a disagreement over whether the merchandise are faulty or not, the saddle of proof is therefore on the consumer. When Mr. Williams purchased the paving stones and left them for delivery at a later date, he left so many loopholes open for abuse. Time of delivery for instance was not specified. But under distance selling regulations, a consumer has up to seven working days to receive the goods or the services paid for after which time the consumer can cancel the contract. Before this is done, the consumer should complain to the trader and inform him of his intention to cancel the transaction. In fact, the distance selling regulations gives a consumer more rights when he purchases merchandise on the internet or through mail order than when buying from a shop (Stuyck, Terryn & Vandyck, 2006). The legal position of our client in this matter is that he should give Bobbys up to seven working days before launching his complains and finally canceling the deal. When a consumer is buying goods from a retailer, the law makes it clear that the agreement is with the retailer but not with the manufacturer. The goods should be of acceptable quality and as maintained for in the manufacturer’s manual and in case of any eventuality to the contrary, then the retailer must sort out the problem for the consumer. It is also mandatory for goods to be of satisfactory quality and fit to do the job intended for them. Here, fit for purpose implies both generally and also specifically for any purpose a consumer enquired about. Since Bobbys had no Stafford hedge trimmers in stock, Mr. Williams should not have agreed with Bobbys to order one from the manufacturers because it is the retailer who is responsible for any flaws found with the product in stock. In this case, Mr. Williams had no basis in accepting to exchange the Stafford hedge trimmers with another type. It was Bobbys who had the responsibility of appeasing the consumer by refunding part of the original purchase price in addition to the alternative hedge trimmers (Stuyck, Terryn & Vandyck, 2006). Even though the prerequisite of honesty and fairness in doing business applies uniformly to the seller and the buyer, pundits are most concerned with the seller, particularly in a contemporary market where the consumer is at an inherent shortcoming in comparison with giant merchants and manufacturers. All too frequently, the individual consumer pays well and receives less than he or she deserves (Twigg, 2007). The responsibility to disclose information relating to price, quality, advertising and display or even warranty and guarantee of any merchandise rests with the seller and thus the consumer is protected against any such unfair practices. Similarly, when Bobbys did not disclose to Mr. Williams that the Chester garden table and chairs were display models and had been discontinued by the manufacturer as well as the source of the topsoil, was a contravention to the consumer’s rights (Twigg, 2007). A further malpractice by Bobbys was when he lied to Mr. Richard Williams about the alleged theft of the Chester garden table and chairs. Because of this therefore, Mr. Richard Williams deserved to be protected against such misconduct. The law of price fraud 5 could satisfactorily apply to this case. A fundamental question concerning the nature of this law is its relation to the category of thievery. This in turn depends primarily on a clearer understanding of the requirement to refund one-sixth 6 of the fraudulent price. Since the transaction pertaining to the Chester garden table and chairs is binding in this case, there apparently exists sufficient awareness and consent concerning the transaction per se (Howells & Wilhelmsson, 1997). Consequently, Mr. Richard Williams is entitled to a refund for the whole purchase price of the Chester garden table and chairs. On the one hand, price fraud may be viewed as an autonomous legal grouping, quite unrelated to thievery. In view of the fact that price fraud may be perpetrated devoid of contravening the requirements of customary trade, it cannot be taken as stealing but only an infringement of the justice expected in monetary dealings (Shears, 2007). The 5. This is the law of price fraud discussed in footnote 2. 6. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 ensures that goods should be of satisfactory quality and fit to do the job intended for them by the manufacturer. law thus requires citizens to behave in harmony with certain principles of brotherhood and fairness, and accordingly not to cover up fundamental information concerning the market price from the other party (Twigg, 2007). The law of price fraud also goes further to protect the rights of the consumer by imposing a time-limit as regards cancellation of a fraudulent transaction. There is no insistence that the victim of thievery or an essentially fraudulent deal cancel within a given time frame. The consumer’s silence should not be taken to signify acceptance and waiver. For one, most merchants do not necessarily investigate any possible defects in the products they are dealing with but are customarily concerned with checking only the prices (Fair & Howells, 2007). It is therefore the intention of the agencies aiding to protect the consumer by demanding that he make the effort of quickly investigating the market prices, within a specified time (Karsten, 2007). Correspondingly, if he has determined that he was defrauded and he remains silent, he forfeits his right, for we assume that he has waived it and accepted the price differential as a normal feature of commerce. On the issue of topsoil, it is established that Bobbys did not disclose its source. As concerns the law of price fraud regarding to land or soil in this matter, the law of price fraud is excluded from real property which is immovable (Grundman & Schauer, 2006). However, since land is a permanently lasting entity, people are willing to waive price fraud and usually offer high prices for it (Howells & Wilhelmsson, 1997). The price for land on the other hand depends to a certain extent on its location and for this reason; there is no standard market price for land 7. 7. Taken to refer to top soil in this case. As regards Mr. Richard Williams’ legal position of his purchase of top soil from Bobbys, it can be maintained that although there is no sanction for price fraud in land, the practice is highly prohibited. On the basis of this therefore, there are opinions that apply price fraud to land above a certain degree. One such opinion cited by (Hoek, 2006) maintains that the law applies to a fraud of 100% and above. This opinion is accepted by the majority of custodians of law, especially those upholding the EC law. After purchasing and paying for all these items from Bobbys, Mr. Williams arranged for all of them to be delivered at a later date. The time for this delivery was not specified and as such, an opening for abuse of consumer’s rights was created. The law has it that if any merchandise purchased and paid for to be delivered later doesn’t arrive on time, a consumer is entitled to protection 8. Also, the Distance Selling Regulations give protection to a consumer who orders something online, by phone, fax or mail order and either the consumer or the seller specified a certain delivery date but it wasn’t delivered on time (Earley, 2007). If this happens then, the consumer has a right to a full refund. On the other hand, if a date wasn’t specified, then delivery should be within thirty days (Earley, 2007). In the case of Mr. Williams, no date of delivery was specified therefore it is assumed that it will be within thirty days. Legally, this is quite binding and Mr. Williams has a basis for launching a claim for a refund or even a cancellation of the business deal in case Bobbys renegades on it. 8. The Distance Selling Regulations also give you protection if you ordered something online, by phone, fax or mail order and either you or the seller specified a certain delivery date but it wasn’t delivered on time. For all the items purchased from Bobbys, Mr. Williams paid by cheque. The law insists that a consumer should pay through the right way for effective protection. Paying using credit cards are better than debit cards, as suggested by Fong & Heydon (1977). This may be surprising, but you’ll notice that a consumer has more rights if he or she spends on a credit card than when spending on a debit card, cash or cheque. But a consumer should not rush to pledge everything onto a credit card costing a fortune in interest, but should consider some planning for the best of both worlds (Fong & Heydon, 1977). This right is for those who have no debts or can at least pay a specific card off in full each month, in which case there is no interest charged and so one can get the benefit of extra rights without any cost (Earley, 2007). Thus by use of a cheque to settle his bill, Mr. Richard Williams was stripped off of most of his rights and had no strong basis for complaint in case of a contravention by Bobbys. Items purchased from Mr. Stanley Robinson and Mr. Williams’ legal position In order to protect the consumer's economic interests, the European Union has prohibited damaging and unfair commercial practices on the market (Felce, 2007). The consumer is thus protected from misleading advertising and its consequences, unfair contract terms, and so forth. Mr. Stanley Robinson placed misleading advertisement in the paper stating that he was selling a two year old Swift cut petrol lawn mower, which he claimed was as good as new. Based on this advertisement, Mr. Richard Williams made a decision of purchasing it. The law on the sale of second hand goods bought from shops stipulates that the same rules for faulty goods should apply. If they're faulty then they can still be returned to the seller. The goods must be of satisfactory quality, and the price must be taken into account. If a consumer is made aware of any faults when buying any goods but goes ahead to buy them any way, the consumer can not return them later because of that fault though (Felce, 2007). However, when a consumer buys second hand goods from private sellers the consumer has only a right that the product is correctly described and the owner has the right to sell it. In this case, it is caveat emptor9. Consequently, if the buyer says nothing about the product and the consumer buys it, then that's it (Karsten, 2007). Even if the product doesn't do what the consumer thought it may, the consumer was not cheated. The law also goes ahead to advice on the purchase of second hand cars specifically from a private seller. If a consumer is buying from a private seller, the rights remain the same as in all cases. However, there are definite factors to be taken into consideration. The car should be fit to use on the road and convincingly reliable (Hoek, 2006). The caption that is commonly used by majority of private sellers that the item is sold as seen 10 has no basis in law. The consumer’s deal of second hand goods act rights should still be applicable here. Mr. Robinson’s Swift cut petrol lawn mower in this report is classified as a car. Since private sellers of cars operate like all second hand private sales, the consumer has a right to expect the car to work perfectly well particularly if it had been stated so by the seller (Fair & Howells, 2007). 9. The English interpretation for “let the buyer beware”. 10. The consumer has the responsibility of examining the item thoroughly before committing to purchase it. He should not simply trust what the seller says about the product. Mr. Robinson had in his advertisement stated that his lawn mower was as good as new; a fact that made Mr. Williams to purchase it without much ado. I find this to have been highly misleading because when Mr. Williams arrived home with the lawn mower, it failed to start. In fact it was completely rusted and it needed as much as it had cost him to put it back on track. This is a case of fraud where the buyer had been defrauded by the private seller. Fraud in this case is based on the withholding of information. It follows that if the seller explicitly indicates that the value is higher than the market price and the consumer accepts it, then the laws of price fraud are inapplicable (Fair & Howells, 2007). Customary cases of price fraud concerning a private individual selling his personal effects 11 indicate that the law does not apply, since he is not working under the rules of the marketplace, but evaluates the object in harmony with his personal attachment to it. With this knowledge, the consumer willingly forfeits his rights of protection under the price fraud laws (Fair & Howells, 2007). These personal belongings are dear to the seller and so he sells them exceedingly expensive. Thus the prices for most private items are left to be caveat emptor (Boom & Loos, 2007). This is the legal position of Mr. Williams since he dealt with a private seller being well aware of this provision. 11. Here personal is when a merchant is selling his property from home. It is thus conceivable to distinguish between an individual selling his personal belongings in his store and one selling in his home. Bibliography Boom, W. & Loos, M. (2007). Collective enforcement of consumer law: securing compliance in Europe through private group action and public authority intervention. European Law Publishing, Groningen. Earley, J. (2007). ''Food labeling: lessons learned'', European affairs: a publication of the European Institute. Fair, G. D. & Howells, G. (2007). ''Rethinking product liability: a missing element in the European Commission's third review of the European Product Liability Directive'', The Modern Law Review. Felce, J. (2007). ''European Union law: packing it in'', European Food and Feed Law Review. Fong, C & Heydon, J. D. (1977). Australian restrictive trade practices and consumer protection, 1960-1977, Faculty of Law, Sydney. Gormley, L. (2006). ''Special issue on competition law and the consumer in the EU'', European Business Law Review. Grundman, S & Schauer, M. (2006). The architecture of European codes and contract law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn. Hoek, A, et al. (2006). Multilevel governance in enforcement and adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerpen. Howells, G & Wilhelmsson, T. (1997) European Community Consumer Law. Ashgate, Dartmouth. Karsten, J. (2007). ''Passengers, consumers, and travellers: the rise of passenger rights in EC transport law and its repercussions for Community consumer law and policy'', A Journal of Consumer Policy. Lando, O. (2006).'' Liberal, social and 'ethical' justice in European contract law’’, Common Market Law Review. Sadeleer, N. (2006). ''The precautionary principle in EC health and environmental law'' European Law Journal. Shears Peter. (2007). ''The EU product liability directive: twenty years on'', The Journal of Business Law. Stuyck, J, Terryn, E & Vandyck, T. (2006). ''Confidence through fairness? Unfair business-to-consumer comercial practices in the internal market’’, Common Market Law Review. Twigg, Christian. (2007). The yearbook of consumer law 2008. Ashgate, Oxon. Read More