Memo

Memo



MEMO

To:Bob Smith

Managing director

From:Xyz

Sales Manager

Date:6/29/2011

Subject: Can “Car bits and Bobs” rely on clause 10?

Standard term is of no use to our company and we can not incorporate it in any way aas Our company Bits and Bobs cannot depend on clause 10 because by doing so, we are indirectly involving in a law conflict, and that law is Consumer Protection Act 1987 law.

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 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 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 safety. which the public at large is entitled to expect; whereas the safety 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 (Richards, 1990, 20).

As 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 required is for the person to show that an injury resulted from a defective product. Liability is then payable in full. Other facts causing the damage will not reduce liability. The Act provides liability in respect of any defect.”

The UK has transposed the Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in an almost slavish in the rules contained in the Unfair Terms, in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083). In the first six months, the defect detected by the consumer presumed to have existed at the time of purchase, unless proven otherwise. After the first six months, the burden of proof that the defect existed at the time of purchase, but bears on the consumer.

Product defects

The consumer has the right, at its option, replace or repair the product, no charge against him and unless those operations are impossible or disproportionate to the damage suffered economically (Gerven, 2000, 668).

Legal action for product defects

First, the consumer can "reject" the goods, and claim a full refund, provided it applied fairly quickly and, the goods were not used. If such disqualification, the consumer may require repair or replacement. In the first two years of the sale, the consumer is certainly right, at its option, replace or repair the product, no charge against him and unless those transactions are economically ...