Consumer Protection from Unfair Trade Act - Assignment Example

Law Questions al Affiliation Question Rosemary’s Case In Rosemary’s case, the issue in contention is the price of the TV & DVDplayer that had a price tag of 9.99. The actual cost has however been stated by the assistant to be 99.99. This can be a case of price mistake or the provision of misleading information which is all dealt with in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trade Act 2008. If a trader has made a mistake that can be seen to be genuine when they are pricing a commodity, then they are not viewed to have committed an offence. In such a case, the trader does not have the legal obligation to sell the item to the buyer. In some cases however the seller may let the buyer have the item at the lower price if it will not have huge economic impact on their sales only as a goodwill gesture. If the price that is indicated to be what an item goes for is unrealistically low, the buyer is expected to realize that the seller has made a mistake. In this particular instance, the price tag indicated 9.99 instead of 99.99. For a TV and DVD player, this is a price that is unreasonably low and should be easily seen as a mistake. As such the seller can successfully argue that the displayed price is not the actual price and refuse to sell it to Rosemary. This however changes when one considers that the display also indicated that it was a special offer. In some cases, a mistake of the price of an item may appear to be a genuine bargain or a special deal. This is the case with Rosemary. The items in question were marked “special deal” and therefore the pricing appeared to be genuine. This therefore made it hard for the buyer to realize that it had been mistakenly priced. In this instance, if Rosemary had a contract, with the seller, she has the right to buy the TV at the price that is stated in the tag. However, if there is no contract between them, them the assistant is not legally bound to sell her the TV and DVD Player at 9.99. Daisy vs. Queens Bookshop In this case, Daisy buys two books and selects a third one as per the terms of the advertised offer. However, the bookshop insists that she has to pay for the third book since the offer had expired. This is a case of giving misleading information which is an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trade 2008. According to the ACT, a seller commits a criminal offence when he gives misleading information on the prices of goods and services or not displaying prices where the prices are key making the decision on whether to buy or not. Such cases also occur when there are signs displaying offers that do not exists or when the seller displays items with the word “offer ends today” yet it is still on the following day. The seller on the other hand presented Daisy with this offer and she accepts it by buying the two books. The terms of the offer, which indicated that one gets an extra free book after buying two influenced her decision to purchase the books. The bookshop is therefore required to also honor its side of the agreement which is to give an extra book to those who buy two. By claiming that the offer had ended the previous day since it was getting popular yet the displays still showed that it is on, the trader is engaging in giving of misleading information. This is an offence under the UK laws and Daisy is entitled to the three books at a price of two as per the terms of the offer. Fleur vs. James Fleur borrowed 1000 from James with the two having an agreement that the money will be paid on 1st December. Fleur pays 800 on the agreed date. Two days later, James asks for the remaining 200 arguing that he had changed his mind. In this case, James and Fleur entered in a contractual agreement. Despite the fact that it is not a written contact, it is still a binding one since both of the agreed to the terms on the amount of money that was to be given out as a loan and the date for returning it. Fleur however pays back 800 which James accepts, with the other remaining 200 to be settled later. When James accepted the initial 800, they mutually agreed to change the terms of the contract. Instead of Fleur having to pay the entire 1000, he was now required to pay the 800 on 1st December and the remaining at a later date. He is therefore not obliged to pay the remaining 200 since James had accepted the 800 payment offer. The case could have been different had the 800 been paid before the agreed date of December 1st. In this case the initial terms of the agreement would have still applied. Accepting the initial 800 would have not change the contractual terms and Fleur was bound to clear the remaining 200 on or before 1st December Question 2 Robert vs. Henry Robert was a passenger in a Taxi being driven by Henry. He is a businessman and due to the accident, he misses a flight and ends up missing on contract that he says could have made him profit. The tort of negligence is very vital in the Robert vs. Henry case in relation to the damages that Robert seeks to get due to the effects of the accident. For him to have a valid claim against the taxi driver, he must prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver resulting in foreseeable financial losses. Negligence occurs in a case where there is an omission to doing something which a reasonable individual would have done (CEM, 2014). In this case, Henry is negligent since he was driving the taxi under the influence of alcohol. It is something that a prudent man as indicated in Alderton B in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)) could not have done. For it to be concluded that Robert is legally entitled to the damage he is claiming, it must be proved that Henry had duty of care and he breached it thereby causing physical and economic losses to the claimant (CEM, 2014). A driver has the duty of care to the passengers in the car and those also using the road. The next thing that is to be determined is whether Henry breached the duty of care. It is indicated that the accident was due to negligent driving under the influence of alcohol. This is a clear indication of the breach of the duty of care. The next issue that should be considered is whether the breach resulted in foreseeable loss to the claimant. In this instance, the claimant has stated that he missed his flight thereby missing on a contract that would have given him profit. Robert is therefore claiming economic loss. The inability to get the contract is directly as a result of the accident as he had to go for treatment thereby missing his flight. With all these factors being considered, it can be concluded that Robert has a valid claim against Henry and may be entitled to damages for the losses. Jack vs. Henry Jack who was a passing motorist who stops to help those involved in the accident. In the process, he gets burnt and is unable to attend work for the next six months. Not going to work means that he will be experiencing economic losses. In the accident, it has been established that Henry is liable for negligence. Jack on the other hand is classified as a rescuer. CEM (2014) defines a rescuer as a person who moves in to help other people who are in danger thereby placing his or herself in risk. Defendants usually use the defense of violenti when rejecting claims from such persons. Despite this being the case, rescuers are unlikely to be held to be violenti when they go ahead to sue the person who caused the original damages to other people (CEM, 2014). Such an approach has been supported by the court due to two major reasons. The first one is that the person may be under a moral duty to act and therefore not acting on their own will. The second reason for the support has been a matter of court policy. In this case, Jack can sue Henry for the losses that he is to incur due to the accident. Jack suffers what can be taken to be economic losses due to the accident. Such losses are defined as non-physical losses. The physical injuries that he experiences keep him off work for six months and thus resulting in loss of earnings, which is an economic loss. The Haynes v. Harwood (1935) provides an insight on deciding whether Jack has legal and valid claim against the taxi’s driver. In this case a policeman who was injured while attempting to save a woman and children at risk from a bolting horse was negligently left by the defendant was found to have a valid claim. The defendant had argued that he was not liable to the loss as the policeman was aware of the risk he was exposing himself to. This is a claim that will most likely appear should Jack decide to sue the taxi driver. The defense of violenti in Jack’s case will however be rejected just like it happened in the Haynes v. Harwood (1935), and Harrison v. British Railways Board (1981). He therefore has a valid claim against Henry. David, Caroline and Fiona David was a passenger in the taxi. The taxi driver therefore had duty of care on him. As it was found out earlier, the driver breached his duty resulting in a foreseeable loss. David experiences post-traumatic stress. It makes it impossible for him to work causing a loss of earnings. Due to the fact that all the three components of the tort of negligence have been proven, he has a valid claim against Henry. Caroline, who is Jack’s mother, also experiences post-traumatic stress as she witnessed Jack being given emergency treatment. In certain circumstances it is usually obvious that the claimant is owed a duty of care by the defendant like in the case of David and Henry. In the Caroline case, however, it is not certain that it arises. In this case, the defendant may argue that he had no duty to care over Caroline. To determine this various decisions must be made. The most important one is the determination of whether the loss was directly as a result of the accident (CEM, 2014). In this instance, it is quite obvious owing to the fact that Caroline is closely related to David by virtue of being his mother. Therefore she has a valid claim against the defendant. The final case is that of Fiona. In Fiona’s case, the defendant may strive to delink the loss experienced from the accident by arguing the she was not directly involved. The issue of the duty of care and the cause of loss that Fiona experiences can be unraveled by looking at the degree of the risk to the injury. Fiona is Jack’s colleague and she also witnesses the injuries at the scene of the accident. When these two are taken into consideration, it is quite clear that the loss she incurred were as a result of the accidents. The two considerations put her at risk of experiencing the post-traumatic stress. Therefore, just like David and Caroline, she has a valid claim against Henry for the loss of earnings due to her inability to go to work. In the three cases involving David, Fiona and Caroline, the court will be able to determine the damages that each is entitled to on the basis of the extent of loss incurred by each of the claimants. Question 3 The occupier liability tort can be used in advising Gerald and the contactor on the two claims that have been brought forward. This is a tort that deals with the actions that breach the Occupier Liability Act 1957. In the two cases, it is first important to determine the occupier of the property that is in question. Wheat v. E Lacon & Co. Ltd (1966) provides the needed test that can be used to determine the occupier. According to this test the occupier is the person that has a degree of control over the premise that is being considered (CEM, 2014). It can also be the one who has the possession of the premise. In this instance, Stewart Bros Ltd is the occupier due to the fact that it is the main contractor who is carrying out renovations on the premises. As the main servicer, they ought to have in mind that any kind of failure to use care may cause injury to a person that is visiting the site of work. The occupier therefore has the duty to using reasonable care. Liability to trespassers and other uninvited visitors is also governed by OLA 1984. The difficulty, however, comes up in deciding when this duty of care arises. If there is no duty of care, then the claimant cannot sue the occupier. In Samuel’s case, it is first imperative to decide whether he was a lawful visitor to the premise or not. Lawful visitors can be categorized into four groups. The first one being persons that have express permission to come to the premise such as guests and workmen. The second group is those with implied permission such as the door to door salesmen. The third category is the people with contractual rights to access the premise (CEM, 2014). The final category is the people that enter the premise by operation of the law. They include safety inspectors and police men with a warrant. Samuel does not fall into any of these categories. He is therefore an unlawful visitor to the site. Despite this being the case, it is still important to determine whether there was duty of care that the contractor owed Samuel as an unlawful visitor. According to section 1(4) of OLA 1984, the occupier owes the unlawful visitor the duty of care in three instances. The occupier should be aware of the danger in question. Secondly they must be aware or ought to be aware that the person in question is near the danger (CEM, 2014). Finally the danger must be one that requires the occupier to protect the unlawful visitor. Board v. Herrington (1972) further indicated that occupiers may also have duty of care of common humanity to the uninvited visitors. The danger in this case was not one that Stewart Bros Ltd needed to protect the uninvited visitor from since he put himself in the danger by climbing the wall. Moreover, the contractor was not aware that Samuel was climbing the wall until he fell and broke his leg. With this in mind, it can be concluded that Samuel has no valid claim against Gerald and Stewart Bros Ltd. The second claim is that involving Angus who is the local authority building inspector. He is a lawful inspector and has the legal permission to access the premise by law. Angus trips over a cable that was lying across the upper floor and ends up falling down the stair case. Due to the fall he suffers concussion and loss of income due to the time off work. Being a lawful visitor, the occupier, who is the contractor, has the legal obligation to exercised duty of care (CEM, 2014). The fact that the cable was running across the top floor is an indication that the danger was something foreseeable to the occupier. Being the local authority building inspector, the contractor is aware that Angus was going to be near the cable in the course of his work. When Gerald gets into contract with Stewart Bros Ltd to renovate the house, he had delegated most of the responsibility including duty of care for lawful visitors to the company. They therefore ought to have ensured that the visitor is protected from the danger. Stewart Bros Ltd failed to exercise the duty of care they owed Angus resulting in physical and economic loss. It was negligence on the side of the contractor. As a result the local government building inspector has a valid claim against Stewart Bros Ltd for the personal injuries as well as the economic loss. Reference List Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856)) Board v. Herrington (1972) CEM 2014, LAW4LST: Legal Studies, The College of Estate Management, Berkshire. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trade Act 2008 Harrison v. British Railways Board (1981) Haynes v. Harwood (1935) Occupier Liability Act 1957 Read More