Consumer Analysis for Bendy Cooper Co - Case Study Example

Consumer law Affiliation Consumer law Ivory limited requested for services from Bendy Cooper Company in order to repair their showers that were faulty. However, instead of doing the actual job of ensuring that the repairs were done in the right manner Bendy Cooper Co. deceived Ivory limited. In that, first instead of making the necessary repairs and changing the faulty tools Bendy Cooper Co. did not buy the necessary materials. Secondly, he had implied that the work would be done in two days but it ended up taking twelve days making the ivory to go without hot water1. Thirdly, he charged more than he had stated because even at first he did not make any quotation to how much the material for the repair would cost the consumers. Therefore, it is clear the Bendy Cooper deceived Ivory limited because five weeks later after the repairs the central heating system stopped working. Consumer protection is a set of laws that protects organizations and individuals from fraudulent acts of traders of service providers. Therefore, the laws have been enacted to ensure that there are right of consumers, fair trade, accurate information, and competition in the marketplace2. In that, the legislators have provided the laws to prevent businesses from engaging in fraudulent or specified unfair practices such as gaining advantage over competitors. Thus, the consumer laws have been put in place to help consumers make complains in case they realize that the service provider is taking advantage of them3. Additionally, consumers are protected from deceptive practices that are mostly conducted by service providers in order to gain unfair profits from the consumers. A deceptive trade practice can be defined as an activity, which a business or an individual engages that is meant to lure or mislead the public into buying or purchasing a product or service4. In the case of Bendy Cooper he deceived Ivory Limited into believing that the repairs done to the central heating system and the amount of money he was paid for the services was adequate for the work done. However, that was not the case because the central heating system stopped working after five weeks of repair. Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices, deceptive practices are prohibited. The Act provides areas that can be said to be deceptive to include fraudulent or unfair business practices and untrue or misleading advertising5. Trade practices are said to be deceptive when a person engages in a deceptive business practice when in the course of occupation, business, and vocation. Secondly, it is a deceptive practice to pass off goods and services of those of another person. Thirdly, when a person uses deceptive designations or representations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services6. Fourthly, when a person represents those services as of a particular quality, standard or grader, as well as, when they state that goods are of a particular model or style in in real sense they are of another. Lastly, when a person engages in any other conduct, which similarly creates a likelihood of misunderstanding or confusion among others7. The Uniform Trade Practices Act further provides that in order for the complaint to prevail in an action under this section they must prove that there was actual completion between the parties or actual misunderstanding or confusion lead them into believing that the service provider was genuine8. Therefore, in the case of Ivory Limited, it was implied to them that Bendy Cooper Company could manage to repair the heating system within two working days, but it in turn took twelve days, which they paid. In their case, the service provider misleads them into believing that the repairs could be done at a shorter period. Additionally, there was a misunderstanding in the sense that, Bendy Cooper had stated that they would conclude the repairs and make the major changes using new materials which the company did not use but they were paid. In addition, to that Bendy Cooper Company made Ivory limited to believe that the materials costed more, but they later realized that the materials were only going for 65.00. Therefore, there was clear deception from Bendy Cooper Company as they took advantage of their consumers. The deceptive acts of Bendy Cooper made Ivory limited make losses because they had to stay without hot water for twelve days. Additionally, they damaged their practice because five weeks later the heating system was faulty again. Because a deceptive act made Ivory to make loses, they have a remedy under the law. In that, according to section 3 of the Act, any person or business that is likely to be damaged by the deceptive trade practice may be granted an injunctive relief upon terms that the court may deem reasonable9. The Act further states that a person is not required making any monetary damage, intent to deceive or loss of profits in order to be granted injunctive relief. Additionally, the court can grant the complaint restitution where the defendant may be required to refund the money or the profit they made from the deceptive practices. By so doing, the court ensures that the complaint is taken back to the position they were before the deceptive trade practice occurred10. In business, it is not easy to determine the actual person to punish and for that reason, the major form of punishment is usually fines as it is the most effective method of getting restitution11. In conclusion, it is not correct to deceive consumers into believing that the services provided are the best. This is because when the consumers rely on the information given to them and they end up getting damages them the individual who relayed that information is liable of confusing and misleading the consumers. In the case of Bendy Cooper Company and Ivory limited, it was wrong for them to mislead the Ivory that they would make the repairs on time and ensure that they were done in the right way, which was not the case. Bendy Cooper after accessing the damages in the central heating system indicated that he could not make any quotations on the materials that were required to repair the unit12. This is because it depended on whether new materials were required, as well as, the amount of work needed to get the system working again. However, he implied that the daily charge would be 200.00 per day in addition to the cost of materials required for the job. He further indicated that the work would only take two days13. However, although Dave implied that the cost of the work would be 200.00 he charged 1235.00 as the work took twelve days to complete. Additionally, he did not replace the new parts that only cost 65.00. Therefore, it was clear that Dave was in breach of the implied terms that he had stated to Ivory Limited. Implied terms under consumer law can be said to be terms that are not expressly stated, but they still form part of the contract14. In most cases, the purpose of the implied terms is to supplement a contractual agreement in the effort of making the deal effective for the purpose of the business, as well as, to achieve fairness between the parties in the contract and to reduce hardship in the contractual obligation. In the case of Bendy Cooper Company and Ivory Limited, the implied terms arose in fact because they were necessary in order to give effect to the expectations of the parties, which must be reasonable15. Therefore, it was the duty of Dave to ensure that the terms implied in the contract were not breached as the consumer relied on those terms. They believed that Dave would do the best he could to ensure that the repairs were done to the expectations of the client16. Additionally, when terms are implied it means that the party that has implied those terms is willing to fulfill them. In this case study, there was frustration because when what intended of the party to the contract was not fulfilled. For example, the work was supposed to be completed in two days, but in turn, it took twelve days17. Additionally, the materials or the new parts that were intended for the heating system were intended to of acceptable quality ensuring that the heating did not break again. Goods of acceptable in implied terms means that the goods or materials used for the work must fit the purpose for which those goods are commonly supplied18. Additionally, these goods must be acceptable in finish and appearance meaning that they should be free from defects and they should be safe for use, as well as, durable19. Therefore, in case the service provider provides goods that are not fit for all the purposes for which the goods of the same kind are intended them the supplier of the goods is in breach of consumer guarantee. This is because the goods are not of acceptable quality20. In the case of Dave, he was supposed to make repairs using new parts that were of the intended purpose; hence, ensuring that there were not faults in the repairs21. However, the materials used in the repairs were not of acceptable quality because the central heating system broke down after just few weeks. In relation, to implied terms that apply to services, the guarantees that automatically apply in this area are that the services rendered under the Trade Practices Act should be carried out with due diligence, care, and skill22. Meaning that the person carrying out the services provided to the consumer should have clear knowledge and understanding of the work. By so doing, it will ensure that the work is done diligently without making any mistakes of frustrating the consumer into finding another person to make the repairs23. Additionally, providing the services with due care and diligence prevents the service provider from breaching the contract24. Secondly, the services rendered by the service providers should fit the purposes that have been made know to the supplier. This is vital because there is no need to indulge in something that a person does not have a clear understanding of; therefore, the service provided should fit the purpose to ensure that the services given are appropriate25. Lastly, the services provided should be within a reasonable time unless otherwise stipulated by the contract or agreed by the parties. In the case of Ivory limited, the time stipulated for the completion of the services provided was two days, but the contractor went ahead to carry out the work within twelve days, which was not what, had been agreed upon in the contract26. This meant that he was in breach of the consumer guarantees provided under the Trade Practices Act. Additionally, the services provided were not give with due care and diligence because if that was the case then the heating system could not have broken down within five weeks27. In that, in case the person who was carrying out the repairs had a clear understanding of what they were doing then the repairs would have lasted the owners a longer period28. Therefore, it is clear that Dave was in breach of the consumer guarantees and for that reason he was liable for providing services that were not fit for the purpose29. The complainant in this case has a remedy by the law where he can get a refund of the money that he had paid the service provider or Dave can make new replacements of the new parts that are fit for the purpose30. By so doing, Ivory Limited will be restituted to the place they were although not wholly. Reference Buttigieg, E. (2009). Competition law: Safeguarding the consumer interest : a comparative analysis of US antitrust law and EC competition law. Austin, Tex. : [Biggleswade: Wolters Kluwer ; Distributed by Turpin Distribution Services. Campbell, D. (2011). International consumer protection. Huntington, N.Y: Juris Pub. Campell, D. (2009). Remedies for international sellers of goods. Salzburg: Yorkhill Law Publishing. Cseres, K. J. (2005). Competition law and consumer protection. The Hague: Kluwer Law Internat. Ginsburg, D. H., & Moore, D. W. (2010). Behavioral Economics and Consumer Protection and Competition Law: A Judicial Perspective. Competition Policy International, 6(103). Goldring, J. (1998). Consumer protection law. Leichhardt, N.S.W: Federation Press. Gunning, J., & Holm, S. (2005). Ethics, law, and society. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. Harris, H. S., & American Bar Association. (2001). Competition laws outside the United States. Chicago, Ill: Section of Antitrust Law, American Bar Association. Healy, J. J. (2009). Consumer Protection Choice of Law: European Lessons for the United States. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 19(3), 535-558. Horvath, A., Villafranco, J., Calkins, S., & American Bar Association. (2009). Consumer protection law developments. Chicago, IL: ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Horvath, A., Villafranco, J., Calkins, S., & American Bar Association. (2009). Consumer protection law developments. Chicago, IL: ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Howells, G. G., Ramsay, I., Wilhelmsson, T., & Kraft, D. (2010). Handbook of research on international consumer law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. Kouladis, N. (2006). Principles of law relating to international trade. New York, NY: Springer. Reuvid, J., & Sherlock, J. (2011). International trade: An essential guide to the principles and practice of export. London, UK: Kogan Page. Rickett, C. E. F., Telfer, T. G. W., & International Consumer Law Conference. (2003). International perspectives on consumers access to justice. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge University Press. Schwenzer, I. H., Hachem, P., & Kee, C. (2012). Global sales and contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Symeonides, S. (2014). Codifying choice of law around the world: An international comparative analysis. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press. The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1980. Unfair Trade Practice Act. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act . Winn, J. K., & Webber, M. (2006). The Impact of EU Unfair Contract Terms Law on U.S. Business-to-Consumer Internet Merchants. Business Lawyer, 62, 209-219. Read More