Legal Protection of Consumer Rights in the United Kingdom - Case Study Example

Consumer Law I. Introduction The United Kingdom has several laws that protect the rights of consumers from faulty and defective goods. The sale of Goods Act 1979, the service Act of 1982, the Supply of Goods Act 1994, the Consumer protection Act of 1987 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, are leading legislations that affords the consumers venue for redress. These laws have common key provisions that ensure that consumers get the right goods and services that they had paid for. According to these laws, the consumer is entitled to protection when it comes to the quality of goods that they purchase. As a general rule, the goods sold must “meet the standard that a reasonable person would regards as satisfactory, taking into account any description of the goods, the price and all other relevant circumstances”.1 By quality of goods, the intent of the law is to include not only the appearance and finish of the goods but also their durability and safety. The sales of Goods Act of 1979 so provides that a seller must only sell goods that conforms to its description and the failure of the seller to meet the requirements of the standards set would result into a liability on the part of the seller. Note that even tiny defects that could have gone unnoticed both by the seller and the consumer at the time the goods were sold are considered as non-compliance to the standards of the goods sold and shall be considered as a ground to impose liability on the part of the seller, should the consumer demand for such. However, where the goods are sold as “shop-soiled” or as damaged goods and the seller openly declares such damage, the seller shall not be held liable for non-compliance with the standards of goods sold. The goods must therefore be as described2. Aside from the standard of goods sold which must be satisfied, the goods must be fit for its purpose. According to the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982, the goods must be fit for any particular purpose mentioned by the seller to the buyer. For instance, where the seller purports to sell a pair of climbing shoes, such climbing shoes should be fit for the purpose and will not break easily from the rigors of mountain climbing. Where the goods do not perform as the seller claims it would, then we can say that the goods does not match its description not just in its physical appearance but also in its capabilities. II. Case Evaluation In our hypothetical case, Lil bought a pair of shoes from “tuffstuff” and wore them on a hill-walking holiday. By the end of the holiday, the shoes had fallen apart and could not longer be used. Lil returned to “Tuffstuff” and demanded replacement. The issue is presented here is that whether or not Lil is entitled replacement of the shoes? According to the store manager, Lil could not claim for replacement since the shoes bought were not really intended for such rough terrain, that there was an exclusion clause on the receipt and that such pair of shoes is no longer available. Let us take the first contention of the shop manager that the shoes were not intended for the rugged terrains. According to the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982, the goods must fit its description. The key factor that should be taken into consideration in this case is the description attached by the seller on the pair of shoes sold to Lil. Where the description of the pair of shoes says that it is not fit for rough terrains, then Lil would not have any rights to demand for replacement since he did not use the produce for its intended use. However, where there is only generic description of the product, the contention of the store manager would be arguable since the store is purported selling products that are durable and tough thus the name “Tuffstuff”. We must always remember that goods should conform to its description and it should be fit for the purpose it is intended. Where the goods were not used for its intended purpose, such act would remove it from the ambit of the protection of the law and the consumer will no longer have the right to demand for replacement. We must always remember that goods and services are intended for certain usage. When we purchase something, such item has limitations in terms of use. If we use such item for purposes other than its intended use, we take on the risk that such item will not function, as it should. Provided that the item was in good condition and corresponded to its description at the time the consumer bought it from the seller, the seller may not be held liable for the malfunction of the item or the fact that such item did not last the guaranteed lifetime. Allowing the consumer to benefit from his or her own mistake, as in the use of the goods not for its intended purpose, would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the consumer to the detriment of the seller. The law protects the consumer but such protection should not be construed as all encompassing and will transgress the rights of the seller. There should be fair treatment between the seller and the consumer. Now, if Lil used the item, which is this case is a pair of shoes in accordance with its specified use, then, the seller could not hide from the liability of defective products. On the second contention of the store manager where he said that there is an exclusion clause at the back of the receipt that could be construed as a binding contract between the buyer and the seller, the law so provides that exclusionary clauses should be viewed with caution. It must be noted that most buyers do not really bother with the finely printed terms and conditions at the back of the receipt, the fact that the buyer signed the receipt should not be construed as the waver of the right of the buyer to claim against the seller in case the goods bought turned out to be defective. It must be noted that buyers are usually not a privy to the drafting of the terms and conditions written at the back of receipts in fine prints nor do they have any options when it comes to ratification of such contract since the contract written in fine print a the back of receipts are already set. Note also that in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, it is provided that terms and conditions in a contract that tends to cause prejudice on the other party are considered null and void as contrary to laws and public morals. Therefore, if the exclusionary clause embodied in the receipt is prejudicial to the rights of the consumer, then it should be considered as unenforceable. Furthermore, under the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982, the seller cannot just simply put in the agreement that there should be no return or exchange of goods. Such clause as “not return, no exchange of goods” even if signed by the consumer is unenforceable. The seller should never attempt to abscond from his or her responsibility towards the buyer by hiding behind the words of a pseudo contract. Now, note that when it comes to the time when the customer could go back to the seller and demand for replacement, repair or exchange of goods, this is not to be construed as limitless. In other words, the seller could set a reasonable time frame where the buyer could demand for return, exchange or repair of the goods bought. The law does not provide specific time frame for this and leaves such decisions to the seller provided that such time should not be less than 30 days for the time of the purchase of the goods. In the event where the time to claim for the right to return, exchange or replace the goods has elapsed, the buyer can still avail of the remedies under the clause on faulty goods. When it comes to inherently defective goods, as stated in the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer can claim for refund, repair or exchange of goods even after the 30 days period or other periods agreed between the seller and the buyer, provided that such claim was filed within the reasonable period of time prescribed by law. As provided for in our English law, where the goods purchased have inherent defects that render it unserviceable to the buyer, the buyer can bring such suit in Court to recover the cost of the item plus the necessary damages where applicable, within 6 years from the time the item was bought from the seller. Where the goods are inherently defective, the exclusionary clause in the contract should not be enough to absolve the seller from his or her liability to the buyer with regards to the defective goods. At best, the exclusionary clause should only be viewed as something that should guide the seller and the buyer in terms of claims arising not on the inherent defects of the goods. Where there is inherent defect in the goods sold or if the true nature and characteristics of the goods sold does not correspond to the description attached to it by the seller, then the buyer shall be entitled to the delivery of the goods as described by the seller. In our hypothetical case of Lil, if the Lil can prove that the product is inherently defective and such defect could not have been detected at the time the item was bought, then “Tuffstuff” could not negate its responsibility over the defective goods simply by virtue of the provisions of the receipt. Will the claim of the store manager that they are no longer carrying such product exonerate the company from the transaction? The fact that the store no longer carries such product is of no consequence. The law so provides that where the item previously purchased is no longer available in the store, the storeowners are still bound the previous transactions. III. Remedies In our hypothetical case of Lil, the buyer can avail of any of the following remedies depending on the circumstances present; return of goods and refund of the purchase price, replacement of goods or repair of defective goods. When presenting the goods for return, replacement or repair, the burden of proof that the item was defective when bought is on the buyer. The buyer must be able to prove to the seller that the defect was inherent and that the goods bought did not correspond to the description given by the seller. In cases where the buyer had used the item many times before t is presented to the seller either for repair, return or replacement, the buyer must be able to prove to the seller that he or she used the item properly. In the event that the seller could not rove that he or she used the item as per its intended use, the seller may not be held liable. On the other hand, where the seller is able to prove that there is inherent defect in the item sold, he or she may request that such item be replaced or repaired as the case may be. In the case of Lil where he had used the item for sometime, he must prove to the seller that the item was not as described by the seller in order to avail of the remedies. However, as Lil had already used the item until it breaks, even if he eventually prove to the seller that the item was not as it is, he can only claim a reduced amount as refund since he already benefited from the use of the pair of shoes. Another option of Lil would be to accept another pair of shoes as replacement of the old one. Beginning the 31st March 2003, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulation have provided options to customers who would like to recover the value of the defective goods from the seller. According to the provisions of this law, goods that do not function as described within six months from the time of delivery shall be construed as inherently defective thus there is no need to prove to the seller that the goods are really defective. Such defect in the goods is presumed under the law. Therefore, if Lil would want to recover under this law, he must bring file the complaint within six months from the time the shoes were bought and ask for replacement. References: 1. Fact Sheets Department of Trade and Industry online available at http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/your-rights/fs_c04.shtml 2. Sale of Goods Act 1979, 3. Service Act of 1982, 4. Supply of Goods Act 1994, 5. Consumer protection Act of 1987 6. Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 Read More