BUSINESS LAW

Business law

Name of the Writer

Name of the Institution

Business law

Introduction

Tefal Actifry is a low-fat fry that facilitate cooking of homemade chips with a small quantity of oil. This feature makes Tefal Actifry made the product one hundred percent safer and healthy as compared to deep fryers. It is frequently agreed that deep fat fryer is tastier than oven chips, but deep fat fryer are not healthier. Later on, complaints listed their complaints regarding some units of Tefal Actifry, as customers facing problems like sparks, blowing out smoke and catching fire. On the other hand, majority of Tefal Actifry units receive a high level of customer satisfaction. For instance, in the case of Paul, the Tefal Actifry appeared to be a faulty product. Therefore, the need of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and other related laws came into sight.

Discussion

The United Kingdom Parliament Act regarding the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that governs the contract laws of English and commercial law of UK in relations to goods, which are traded. This act strengthens the former Sale of Goods Act 1893 and following legislation that in turn had consolidated and codified the law. There have some minor amendments, as well as additions to the Act of 1979 (Thomas, 2012: 44-64).

This act facilitates consumer to claim a refund from the shop keepers. However, the shop keeper may mislead consumers by saying that they have to claim from the manufacturer or under the guarantee of the manufacturer, but it is not true. Under the 1979 Act of Sale of Good Act as amended that is neither in favor of retailer nor the manufacture. It provides shoppers an addition right to choose under this guarantee (Miller, 1994: 39-40).

Since, in the case of Paul Price as he and his family are not happy with Tefal Actifry. Paul attempted to switch Actifry on but nothing happened then he pinch up the lid, and realized that the heating element at the rear of the unit went from red to white hot. And the time, it was white hot there was a fire that came out of the resistance that as a result caused the plastic around it to begin to grasp fire. And, it was giving off a black smoke that was too thick. Paul would expect better of a product from Tefal manufacture.

Therefore, Paul can use rights to claim guarantee under the Sale of Goods Act. On the other hand, at the time of contract Tefal added a clause of limited liability. This clause can probably restrict the rights of consumers if they are not happy with the product. Because under this act, a consumer can claim to recompense from retailer up till six years if the product has some fault, as in case of Paul. On the contrary, the clause of limited liability in the agreement of Tefal Actifry can put a ceiling on Paul purchase.

Tefal can legally restrict the claim of Paul in relation to Actifry but it tends to be unethical ...