Consumer Protection Mechanisms - Essay Example

In the situation described, and under the terms and conditions of the Consumer Credit Act and the Unfair Contract Terms Act Duck and his business may be advised of the following ways out and remedies.

First of all, according to the Consumer Credit Act, a credit organization is now allowed to come into repossession of the goods bought in credit in case all payments and installments are performed in due time. According to the latest amendments, included in the Consumer Credit Act 2006, all agreements higher than £25,000 are now subject to the regulation by this act and thus the Act statements can be used in Dove’s attempt to protect its rights. The case is connected with the fact that the seller has used misleading trade descriptions when selling the goods to Duck, and the seller in this case is subject to penalties according to the Trade Descriptions Law 1968.

The actions of Chicken Credit Ltd were wrong in the following:

- clause 17, based on which Chicken Credit Ltd demanded the payment of the sum of £13,629 in addition to the arrears of installments of £5,043 is not valid, as Dove Ltd didn’t initiate the termination of the agreement, and just wanted the changes of the agreement based on the dysfunction of the goods (the lorries) he has bought.

- clause 17 may be subjected by Dove Ltd under the statements and regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms Act as the agreement terms, which break the consumer rights of Dove Ltd and thus demand too high arrears sums and installments in case he decides to terminate the agreement with Chicken Credit Ltd;

- even in case the actions of Chicken Credit Ltd were partially right, they had to keep to the term of 14 days before repossessing the goods, according to the Consumer Credit Act 2006. As far as the 14 days term has not been followed by Chicken Credit Ltd after having sent the notice to Dove Ltd, it may address the court in his request to recognize the credit company’s actions as illegal. The same actions may be performed about clause 17 of the credit agreement, though there are some notes, which should be taken into account by Dove Ltd. First of all, under the UCTA business-to-business relationships and conflicts are resolved in somewhat different ways than those of consumer-to-business, and certain terms and statements of agreements and contracts, which should be supposed unfair to private consumers, won’t be supposed unfair to business (to Dove Ltd, in our case). Dove Ltd must keep in mind that only in case the contract does not include the exclusion term, which limits the supplier’s liability, he may sue the company under the UCTA for supplying the defective goods. Otherwise, this fact won’t serve as the basis for breaching the contract or recognizing some of its terms as unfair.

In this situation, Chicken Credit Ltd had to sue Alligator, and not Duck, for having provided misleading descriptions of the lorries sold. The same actions could also be performed by Duck about Alligator. Under the Trade Descriptions Act Alligator may be subject to penalties and fines, and Dove Ltd, being the injured party, having paid the three installments and the deposit, and using the lorries dysfunction, has the full right to address the court against Chicken Credit Ltd under the UCTA and Consumer Credit Act. Anyway, according to the UCTA, Dove Ltd has the full right to demand the price reduction based on UCTA, which claims that the goods bought, should correspond to the seller’s description, fit their purpose and not bear any defects. However, in the situation described, Dove Ltd should probably have sued Alligator for the misleading trade description, though his demand for price reduction from Chicken Credit Ltd can in no way be interpreted as his wish to terminate the agreement and thus the ground for applying clause 17.

The notice, sent by Chicken Credit Ltd to Duck, had to include several obligatory elements, which appear to be absent and thus this notice may be recognized as invalid based on the Consumer Credit Act.

The actions of Chicken Credit Ltd against Dove Ltd can be recognized as illegal based on the three laws and acts – the Consumer Credit Act, The UCTA, and the Trade Descriptions Act. Certain statements of these acts should be used by Dove Ltd as the remedies and explanation of his liabilities in his attempt to make a protest against the credit company’s actions. The credit company used clause 17 of the agreement in the wrong situation, which does not fit its conditions, as well as the repossession of goods was performed through the wrong procedure. Thus, Dove Ltd may make use of the laws, noted in the paper for its further actions and return the goods for which it has already partially paid.