CONSUMERS AND THE LAW

Consumers and the Law

Consumers and the Law

Introduction

This paper is based on two legal case studies. One relates to the Consumer Protection Act of Britain and the other relates to the criminal liability on part of a tour operator. Hence this assignment has two parts, each dedicated to the cases presented. In the first part, the current developments in Consumer Protection Act will be discussed. The second part, George has sought advice regarding his actions, he need to take in order to tackle the situation; he has faced at Seaside Holidays Ltd (Johar, 1996,, 209).

Part A

Consumer Protection Act 1987

In case of Abuzaid v. Mothercare, the Court held the point of view that the product was intended to be attached to the pushchair by elasticised straps passed around the back of the pushchair from each side of it and joined by a metal buckle attached to one of the straps. The buckle was intended to pass through a loop on the other strap. The straps are respectively 7 and 8 inches long and just under an inch wide. The buckle is of light construction. eye…[I]t is accepted by the appellants that the current condition of the left eye is the result of the accident. The claimant has no useful central vision … What can be said…is that the mechanism by which the injury occurred was predictable but very unlikely hence a claim under common law negligence failed on the foreseeability test… (Johar, 1996,, 209).

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is 'An Act to make provision with respect to the liability of persons for damage caused by defective products'. Section 1(1) provides that 'subject to the following provisions of this Part, where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, every person to whom section 2(2) below applies shall be liable for the damage' . It is conceded that the appellants come within section 2(2) as producers of the product. It is pertinent to note the Directive: 'Whereas, to protect the physical well-being and property of the consumer, the defectiveness of the product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety which the public at large is entitled to expect; whereas the safety is assessed by excluding any misuse of the product not reasonable under the circumstances; Whereas a fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer implies that the producer should be able to free himself from liability if he furnishes proof as to the existence of certain exonerating circumstances;' (Venkataramani, 2000,, 307).

But the condition of strict liability applies here, which in principle requires no proof of negligence. As mentioned in part 1 of the 1987 Act, “The Act provides strict liability. This means that there is no requirement to prove negligence. All that is required is for the person to show that an injury resulted from a defective product. Liability is then payable in ...