Consumer rights are widely defended in the UK, but as a rule, to become a subject for such defense, the consumer should be sure to sign the contract of purchase in any form. Receiving a check for the payment provided for the good is a must since, without this document, a consumer will be helpless to prove that he has made a purchase. This paper aims to analyze the case scenario featuring the application of laws regulating consumer rights.
The legislation related to the case includes Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumer Protection Act 1987 features the responsibilities of producers and suppliers of goods (Marson and Ferris, 2015). The issue of the damages incurred by the customer, including death, health, and property damages, are described in this law. Consumer Rights Act 2015 defines the consumers’ rights and how their interests can be protected.
Several statutory provisions are presented in both laws that can be applied to the situation discussed in the case scenario. First, in Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is said that “where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product,” the liable persons are the product producer and an importer who supplies the product to other people (Consumer Protection Act, 1987). The defect is determined in Section 3 as when “the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect”; simultaneously, safety refers to the context of “risk of death or personal injury.”
Then, Section 5 determines damage as “death or personal injury.” It is also said that the person can obtain knowledge about defect “from facts ascertainable by him with the help of appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek,” and is supposed then to “act on that advice.” The Consumer Rights Act 2015 can be seen as the supportive law; in Section 9 of the Act, it is said that “goods to be of satisfactory quality,” implying that any contract between the consumer and supplier is to be treated as guaranteeing this requirement.
The satisfactory quality includes “fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied,” safety, and durability. In Section 17, it is said that “trader to have right to supply the goods,” implying that there should be a contract between the supplier and consumer; in Section 20, it is said that the consumer has the right to reject the good and “receive back the same amount of money.” In Section 22, it is implied that the short time to reject, which is 30 days, should be agreed through a contract in advance and applies to goods that would perish during this term. In Section 23, it is said that the customer has the right to repair or replacement. The supportive case here is Kancelaria Medius (2020) implying that fair terms of purchase should be protected.
In this particular situation, it is likely that the consumer will not receive the refund of money and the compensation for the personal injury since he did not sign any contract with the supplier and paid in cash. Therefore, he will not have the opportunity to prove the liability of the supplier. If he had such a contract, he would have executed his right to final reject and received the full refund, or could ask for repair or replacement of the good. Unfortunately, there is nothing the consumer can do in the described situation.
Thus, it was discussed how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply to the case scenario. If Paul had a check from the supplier, he could have received a full refund compensation for the damages suffered due to the defect in the good. However, he did not have any contract with the supplier and has no opportunity to prove the supplier’s liability.
The employees’ rights and their safety in the workplace are widely protected in the UK. Many people suffer from minor and major discriminatory and victimizing behavior of their colleagues and managers. Employees often think there is nothing they can do to protect them, as the employers may implicitly threaten them with being dismissed and get new, less favorable terms of employment. This paper aims to analyze the case scenario featuring the application of employment rights.
The legislation related to the case includes Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. Employment Rights Act 1996 indicates the employment rights of the UK workers; it updates the earlier labor laws (Employment Rights Act, 1996). Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination at work (Marson and Ferris, 2015). Employment Rights Act 1996 can be seen as supportive law for the case presented. It provides general information on the employees ‘rights, including the circumstances under which they may be dismissed and the amounts of compensatory awards. Section 13 of Equality Act 2010 defines direct discrimination as a situation when “a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favorably than A treats or would treat others.”
In Section 26 the harassment is defined, “a person (A) harasses another (B) if – (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of – (i) violating B’s dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.” In Section 39 it is noted that “an employer (A) must not discriminate against a person (B),” including “as to the terms on which A offers B employment,” “by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service, ” “by dismissing B,” or “by subjecting B to any other detriment.” It is also said that “an employer (A) must not victimize a person (B)” referring to the same terms. The supportive case law is Miss P Gorton v. Josh Webb T/a (2018) where Ms. Gorton’s complaint on wage reduction due to maternal discrimination was satisfied.
Therefore, in a given situation, Jennifer is protected by law, and her manager’s actions should be considered as discrimination in part of his special monitoring of her leaves. At the same time, the manager’s humiliating speech regarding Jennifer should be considered harassment (Equality Act, 2010). Jennifer can contact senior management with a complaint to stop her manager from his discriminative and victimizing behavior. She should not be afraid of being dismissed or subjected to a detriment or start receiving a reduced payment or otherwise get her terms of employment changed since such actions are prohibited by Equality Act 2010.
Thus, it was discussed how Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 apply to the case scenario. Jennifer should not be afraid of being dismissed or get less beneficial terms of employment due to her pregnancy since such acts are considered discriminatory and are prohibited by the mentioned laws. She should also be more confident and stand for her rights in a conversation with her manager, who is victimizing her.
Consumers’ rights are adequately presented in the UK legislation and provide a steady ground for fair contracts between the consumers and suppliers of goods. However, some individuals and companies do not consider themselves liable for the nationally recognized laws. Some private sellers can be rude to customers and refuse to interact based on legislation in case of the emergence of controversial issues. This paper aims to discuss the application of the UK consumer rights legislation based on the case scenario.
The legislation related to the case includes Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumer Protection Act 1987 features the responsibilities of producers and suppliers of goods and considers the issues of the damages incurred by the customer (Marson and Ferris, 2015). Consumer Rights Act 2015 presents the consumers ‘rights and how their interests can be protected. There are particular statutory provisions in both laws that protect Mr. and Mrs. Williams’ rights.
In Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is said that if any damage is caused due to the defect in the product, the producer and supplier are liable for the damage. It is also noted that consumers can request the supplier to identify the liable persons, including the producer. Moreover, in Section 2, it is said that when two or more persons are responsible for the damage, “their liability shall be joint and several.” In Section 3, the defect is understood as the reason for the damage and the reason for violation of safety, “in the context of risks of property damage,” and “risks of death or personal injury.”
In Section 9 of Consumer Rights Act 2015, it is said that goods to be of satisfactory quality, and “every contract to supply goods is to be treated as including a term that the quality of the goods is satisfactory.” It is implied that satisfactory means the goods “meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory,” considering the description of the goods, their state and condition, fitness for all purposes, freedom from minor defects, safety, and durability. In Section 20, the right to reject is discussed, and in Section 21 – the right to partly reject the goods; in Section 23, the details regarding the right to repair and replacement are provided. The supportive case law is Ibercaja Banco (2020) judgment implying that the initial consumer contracts have the determining power and are to be followed.
In a given situation, Mr. and Mrs. Williams should speak again to their supplier, mentioning their liability to refund, replace, or repair the dishwasher on the consumers’ request; they can also execute their right of final refuse and receive a full refund. They should also demand to replace the shelves, and the installation should be made at the supplier’s cost. If the supplier does not adhere to their demand, Mr. and Mrs. Williams can file a complaint and sue the supplier, as it is highly likely that they will win the case.
Thus, it was discussed how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply to the case scenario. Mr. and Mrs. Williams should not put up with being denied their legitimate consumer rights for no good reason. They should notify the seller that they know their rights and are ready to sue if necessary. Most likely, an unscrupulous seller will change his attitude and fulfill his obligations to replace or repair the product and refund the cost.
Consumer rights are thoroughly protected by UK legislation and in courts. Small private enterprises should pay enough attention to the quality of the products they supply to the market; otherwise, they risk their image and the health of their customers. The consequences can vary in severity, from fines to imprisonment. This paper aims to critically analyze the application of consumer rights laws in the UK using an example presented in the case scenario.
The legislation related to the case includes Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015. In the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, the liabilities for damages, defects definition, and the types of defense for suppliers are discussed (Consumer Rights Act, 2015). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 can serve as a supportive law as it describes how the money for the goods can be refunded to the consumer.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987, Section 2, implies that producer and supplier are liable for any damage caused by the product defects. It is also noted in Section 2 that when two or more persons are liable for the damage, “their liability shall be joint and several.” The relations of liability between the producer and supplier are discussed here in detail. In Section 3, the defect is determined as to when “the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect”; simultaneously, safety refers to the context of “risk of personal injury.”
In Section 5, the damage is determined as “personal injury.” In Section 4, it is stated that “in any civil proceedings by virtue of this Part against any person in respect of a defect in a product it should be a defense for him to show,” “that the defect constituted a defect in a product in which the product in question had been comprised.” In 19 the Section, it is stated that “the consumer has a right to recover from the trader the amount of any costs incurred by the consumer as a result of the breach, up to the amount of the price paid or the value of other consideration given for the goods.” The supportive case law is Home Credit Slovakia (2019) judgment implying that consumer’s right should be protected under any circumstances.
Given the situation presented in the case scenario, both Henry and Louisa and their producer Amanda are liable for the damage. There is nothing they can do in their defense, according to Section 4, since the defect was present, could be determined by scientists, was present in the product which is not a constituent of the other, defected product, and caused the violation of safety, namely the injuries. The liable persons will have to refund the cost of the product with a defect. They will also have to pay for the consequences of the product having defects, like providing medical treatment, as described in Section 19 of Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Thus, it was discussed how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply to the case scenario. Henry and Louisa should be more careful when choosing suppliers of products and check their composition, especially considering that they are positioning themselves as a natural cosmetics brand. The situation presented in the scenario is highly unpleasant; therefore, Henry, Louisa, and Amanda must apologize to the buyer and pay damages.
References
Consumer Protection Act (1987).
Employment Rights Act (1996).
Equality Act (2010).
Consumer Rights Act (2015).
Home Credit Slovakia (Consumer protection – Consumer credit agreements – Judgment) (2019) EUECJ C-290/19
Ibercaja Banco (Consumer Protection – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Judgment) (2020) EUECJ C-452/18
Kancelaria Medius (Consumer protection – Consumer credit – Judgment) (2020) EUECJ C-495/19
Miss P Gorton v. Josh Webb T/a (2018) UKET 2420872/2017.
Marson, J. and Ferris, K. (2015) Business law. Oxford University Press.