The Issues of Commercial Law in the UK - Coursework Example

Consumer law Introduction The United Kingdom has several laws that govern commercial activities in the country. Key among the laws and other constitutional institutions strive to protect the consumers in the country from exploitative commercial organizations. Rights of the consumers, fair trade, accurate information, and competition are some of the vital features the laws seek to ensure in order to protect the consumers1. The case alongside portrays breaches of some of the most fundamental rights of the consumer thereby causing her immense financial loss and psychological distress. The commercial laws in the country consider any commercial activity especially the purchase of products as contracts. As such, the laws provide appropriate remedies to any breaches of the contract thereby cushioning the consumers from fraudulent businesspeople who often exploit such vulnerable groups2. The case alongside portrays breaches of the contract since the businessperson exploits the consumer thereby contravening a number of consumer protection laws as the discussion below proves. Sue is the consumer in this context. The laws describe a consumer as any person who purchases a product for either domestic or commercial consumption3. Such people use the products they purchase in their either homes or commercial premises. They do not resell the products. Sue visits a carpet shop and selects one carpet that interests her. During the visit to shop the owner of the shop, Alan, explains to her the nature of the product all of which enhance her interest in the product. She, therefore, promises to buy the carpet after confirming the intricate feature of the products. As explained earlier, the two create a contract with specific terms4. When Sue pays for the products, she validates the contract since the payment serves as a consideration in the contract. The terms of stated that Alan would deliver the carpet within ten days after payment. Additionally, Sue wanted a carpet capable of covering a 90 square meters space. The carpet she paid for had specific qualifications. It was purple in color and according to the explanation from Alan; the carpet was fade and stain resistant, high quality, and extremely hard wearing. Sue therefore paid for a product that cover her entire space and was suitable for multipurpose use. Sue therefore paid for a product with the exact features explained above. During delivery, Alan breached the most intricate features of the contract. Firstly, he delivered the product later. She expected the product within ten days. Alan instead delivered the product at a delayed date, which coincidentally coincided with Sue vacation day. Other features of the product were also in contravention of the contract. The carpet for example was not purple in color. It did not cover the entire space as Alan had promised and had already begun fading and showing stain patches by the time Sue came back from her vacation. Such were features that Sue did not expect from the product since Alan had explained that the product was multipurpose and of the best quality. The above case shows an unscrupulous business person exploiting a consumer by breaching the contract thereby breaking some of the laws governing commercial activities in the country5. Alan’s behavior is criminal and punishable by law in the country6. Firstly, he does not provide the client with the terms of sale only to do so by providing some scanty information on the back of the receipt. The terms printed on the back of the receipt further enhance his exploitative nature by preventing the consumer from laying any claim especially after he exploits her as was argued in Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd7. Alan’s conduct contravenes various laws in the country key among which is the Sale of goods act 1979. The act stipulates that before purchasing a product, a consumer have a right to information about the product. This implies that the consumer should describe the product he o she wants to the retailer who in turn should offer the product as explained by the consumer. In case the consumer does not have such a product, he can explain the features of another product with the view to convincing the customer to purchase it. The key factor advising the communication between the consumer and the retailer is consumer’s desires. The goods a retailer supplies to the consumer should meet the description set at the time of purchase. Additionally, the goods must have a satisfactory quality and they must fit the purpose. In the case above, Alan contravened the act. He delivered products that did not match the description he offered at the point of payment. Additionally, the products were not of satisfactory quality and they did not fit the purpose. Sue should, therefore, make a claim under the act. Alan exploited her thereby causing her major financial loses besides the inconveniences and the stress related to such. According to the act, Sue’s rights are against the retailer and not the manufacturer. Manufacturers are safe since they developed products for various markets. Retailers purchase the products from the retailers to sell them to various consumers depending on their specifications. Alan understood the products and therefore offered Sue a product that would satisfy her. He promised Sue a product that would meet her descriptions. However, he delivered a different product. He therefore breached the act by delivering goods that did not meet the description. As such, he is liable for the damages Sue encountered with the product8. The act further provides specific ways of resolving such cases. Sue can, for example, return the carpet since it is not the one she described. Such is an out of court resolution that relies on the willingness of the retailer. Additionally, she can sue the retailer for breaching the contract. She will have to prove the nature of the breach. Fortunately, the disparity in the product Alan provided from the one she described are obvious and the defects are not results of any natural wear and tear arising from the use of the products. The product, for example, does not fit the space, is not of the color she wanted, and the quality is evidently not the one Alan promised. As such, the courts would settle the case appropriately thereby directing Alan to take responsibility for his actions. Other equally important laws that Alan contravened include the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999. The two laws among many others seek to control the legality and operations of some contracts. The terms of a contract may always permit exploitation of a party in the contract thereby creating an imbalanced environment. Key among the functions of the two acts is that they limit applicability of disclaimers of liability. Just as the name suggests, the act makes every term that either excludes or limits liability ineffective. Some businesspeople are always exploitive. Such individuals create contracts systematically with the view to serving their own interests. They create exploitative terms that ensure that they do not account for the liabilities arising from such contracts. The act therefore introduced a timely feature by ensuring fairness in contracts. This way, the act protects consumers from exploitative retailers who may always exclude reasonableness in their transactions. As explained earlier, such commercial transactions as the purchase of a product from a retailer is a type of contract9. Retailers often have terms of the sale of a product with some retailers indicating the terms at the back of the receipt without explaining the terms to the consumers. The act protects the consumers from such terms especially in cases where they eliminate liability. In the case alongside, the receipt, that Alan provides to Sue states that the company does not accept liability since the 10% discount excludes the liability under the sale of goods act. Additionally, the terms at the back of the receipt indicate that the company will not accept responsibility for defects on the carpets that they supply, but do not fit. While the latter term is realistic since the individual fitting the carpet is likely to damage the product, the same does not apply in Sue’s case. Sue ordered for a specific carpet, one that fits her space and is of a specific color. Alan, who promise to supply the very carpet, decided to supply a different carpet, of a different quality, color and size that did not fit Sue’s space. As such, the terms at the back of the receipt are unfair since they exempt Brogden Carpets from taking responsibility10. They also exploit the company’s clients. Alan delivered a different product since he planned to exploit the fact that Sue had contracted a different individual to install the carpet in her studio. His argument that the one fitting the carpet destroyed it is preposterous. The case that Sue should present to the court does not investigate the fitter of the carpet but instead investigates the quality of the carpet and the disparity from the carpet Sue ordered from the one Alan supplied. Alan deliberately supplied a carpet of low quality thereby making immense profit from the transactions. He further uses archaic terms of same to exploit the consumer by exempting himself from taking responsibility. The two acts introduce the concept of reasonableness. This requires the court to investigate every feature and the uniqueness of every case with the view to establishing the intentions and commitment of every party in the transaction. This way, the court uses common law among other laws to establish the reasonableness of the actions of every party as was the case in Bernstien v. Pamson Motors Ltd11. The United Kingdom is part of the European Union a feature that intensifies the country’s commitment to consumer protection to the standards of the European Union. The country has structures that permit citizens to present their cases to the courts. Sue should, therefore, present her case to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service. The service will initiate investigations into the case before presenting the case to the Director General of Fair trade at the Office of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading will then initiate litigation against Alan in case they quantify the Alan’s exploitative conducts. In retrospect, the case alongside is one in which a retailer exploits a consumer. The consumer should, therefore, seek appropriate legal ways of addressing the matter. As argued earlier, the United Kingdom has effective structures and laws that protect consumers from exploitation. The fact that the country part of the European Union further enhances the consumer protection structures12. Alan is a scheming businessperson who identifies opportunities to exploit his customers. The goods he supplied to the customer are not of the same quality and do are not as described by the same businessperson at the time of payment a feature that contravenes the sale of goods act 1979. Furthermore, the terms at the back of the receipt exempt the businessperson from accept liability arising from his actions. This contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Bibliography Books and articles Campbell, D. (2010). Remedies for international sellers of goods. Huntington, N.Y: Juris Publishing. Cartwright, P. (2001). Consumer protection and the criminal law: Law, theory, and policy in the UK. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge University Press. Cseres, K. J. (2005). Competition law and consumer protection. The Hague: Kluwer Law Internat. Great Britain. (2000). Unfair standard terms: Guidance for consumer advisers on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Great Britain, Office of Fair Trading. Horvath, A., Villafranco, J., Calkins, S., & American Bar Association. (2009). Consumer protection law developments. Chicago, IL: ABA Section of Antitrust Law. Howells, G. G., & Weatherill, S. (2005). Consumer protection law. Aldershot [u.a.: Ashgate. Mawrey, R. B., & Riley-Smith, T. (2012). Butterworths commercial and consumer law handbook. London: LexisNexis. McKendrick, E. (2009) Contract law. 8th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mead, L., Sagar, D., & Bampton, K. (2008). Fundamentals of Ethics, Corporate Governance and Business Law. Burlington: Elsevier Science & Technology. Meiselles, M. (2013). International commercial agreements: An Edinburgh law guide. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press. Metzger, M. B. (1992). Business law and the regulatory environment: Concepts and cases. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Cases Bernstien v. Pamson Motors Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220. Feldaroll Foundry plc v. Hermes Leasing Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 747. J & H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9. Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co Ltd [1977] 3 WLR 90. R & B Customs Brokers & Co. v. United Dominions Trust [1988] 3 All ER 831. Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831. St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd (1996) The Times 14 August.  Stag Line Ltd v Tyne Ship Repair Group Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 211. Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd [1992] 2 All ER 257. Read More