Issue
1. With regard to the Tafel Actifry fryers, explain to Peter Pryce, Daniel and Sandra whether they have any rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In your answer, you are required to refer to the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and relevant case law. You should also consider what remedies are available.
2. Assuming the Tafel shop where the purchase was made had included an exclusion clause limiting liability, briefly explain whether the company could rely on this clause. If the case against the company proceeds to court, explain which court is likely to hear the case.
The issue in this given scenario that has been identified is whether the Peter Pryce, Daniel and Sabdra can bring actions against Tafel Acitifry fryers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a statute of United Kingdom which aims to protect the rights of the consumers in relation purchase of goods. It has been provided in section 3 of chapter 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that this chapter covers any contract for a trader to supply goods to the consumer in case of a sales contract. It can be stated in accordance with section 9(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that in each and every contract involving supply of goods to the customers, a term stating that the goods are of satisfactory quality would be implied. It has been provided in subsection 9(2) of the aforementioned act that the in contracts of supply of goods, such goods would be considered to be of satisfactory quality if any reasonable person assesses such goods to be satisfactory by considering:
- Description of goods
- The consideration amount paid for the acquisition of the goods if relevant
- Any relevant circumstances.
It has been specifically provided in section 9(3) of the aforementioned act that the following aspects are assessed to identify whether the quality of the goods were of satisfactory quality:
- Fitness of the goods for the purpose they had been acquired
- Finish and appearance
- Durability
- Safety
- Freedom of goods from defects which are minor
It has been specifically provided in section 11 of the Consumer Rights Act, that goods which are delivered by description must be match with the description by which they were sold. It has been further specified in subsection 11(3) that if the supply of goods is done by sample as well as by description, the bulk goods delivered are required to not only match with the sample but also with the description.
In section 19 of the aforementioned act the right of the consumers to enforce terms of the goods has been provided. The consumers have the right to enforce the terms of the goods if the goods fail to conform to the provisions and terms as provided in sections 9,10,11,13 and 14. It has been provided in Subsection 19(3) of the aforementioned act that if the goods delivered to the consumer fail to conform to the supply contract due to a breach of the terms as mentioned in sections 9,10,11,13 and 14 consumers have:
- Short term right to reject the goods as provided in section 20 and 22
- Right to repair and replacement as provided in section 23
- Right to final rejection of goods as provided in section 24 and right to a price reduction as provided in section 20.
Rule
It can also be stated in accordance with section 19(11) that a consumer that in specific circumstances, a consumer has the right to claim damages or specific performance for breach of the terms of the supply of contract as discussed above.
It has been specifically provided in section 20(7) that once the consumer has used his right to reject the goods the trader is mandated to give the consumer a refund and the consumer is obligated to retur the rejected goods to the supplier. It has been further specified in section 23(1) of the the aforementioned act that the consumer is entitled to ask for repair or replacement of the goods, if the same have been found to contravene the statutory rights of the consumers. In subsection 23(20 it has been provided that the supplier has the duty to repair or replace the goods within a reasonable time period if the consumer asks for repair or replacement of the goods. The supplier must also bear necessary costs for doing the same.
Thus by analyzing the facts of the case it is clearly evident that Tafel had sold four pieces of their product Acitifry Fryers to Peter Pryce. In this given case study it is provided that Tafel had declared that their products are extremely safe while selling them to Peter Pryce. However, the product caught fire while it was being used by Peter and Peter sustained minor injuries due to the same. Thus in this case it can be stated that the contract of supply of goods there was breach of the provisions of section 9 which state that products or goods sold must be satisfactory quality. Goods which are unsafe or defective cannot be considered to be satisfactory quality as per provisions of section 9(3). Further the goods did not match with description as they were supposed to be safe. Thus in this case the Peter can reject the goods in accordance with section 20. He can also ask for repair replacement of the product in accordance with section 23. He can also claim damages for the injuries sustained in accordance with section 19(11).
Conclusion
Thus to conclude, it can be stated that Peter can reject the goods, ass for repair or replacement and claim damages breach of his statutory rights.
The issue in the second scenario is whether Tafel could limit its liability if an exclusion clause had been incorporated in the contract.
Application
It is to be mentioned that exclusion clause in a contract can be defined as a term which aims to limit the liability of the party who wishes to incorporates such term in the contract (McKendrick 2014). Such term generally restricts the liability of the party in case of breach of contract or negligence. It can be sated that exclusion clause can be inserted into the contract by:
- Signature
- Notice
- Course of dealing
In case of signed document the exclusion clause would be held to be effective in limiting the liability of the party who wishes to rely on it irrespective of the fact whether the other party who had signed the document had read the term or not. This had been illustrated in the case of Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805. In this notable case the plaintiff had given her wedding dress for cleaning to the defendants. While giving the dress she signed the document which contained the clause that the cleaners would not be liable for any damage to the dress of the customers however arising. The dress was returned badly stained. The cleaners could not limit the liability for the damage to the dress as the clause had been misrepresented by the assistant of the defendant (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2016).
In the landmark case L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 it had been held by the court that any term which is contained in the document which is signed by the parties would binding upon them whether they read such clause or not.
An exclusion clause can be contained in an unsigned document in the form of a ticket or a notice. In case of representing exclusion clause by a notice or ticket, the general rule is that reasonable notice of the clause must be provided by the party who wishes to rely on such clause to the other party to the contract. As held in the notable case Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 reasonable notice of an exclusion clause would be constituted by:
- By incorporating the term in the main contractual document which is likely to attract the attention of the other party. Such exclusion clause must not be provided through a ticket which is likely to miss the attention of the other party
- Incorporating the term and bringing to the attention of the party of such exclusion clause at the time when the contract had been formed (Poole 2016).
In the Notable ne Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 case it had been held by the court that exclusion was ineffective in limiting and restricting the liability of the defendant as the exclusion had been printed at the back of a ticket and it was not reasonably possible to have attracted that the attention of the plaintiff.
An exclusion clause can also be incorporated by the course of former dealings eve when sufficient notice about the existence of such terms has not been given to the other part as held in the case Hollier V Rambler Motors [1972] 2 AB 71. The law related to the unfair contract terms are governed by the provisions of common law and by the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977.
In this given situation it is evident that the product manufactured by Tafel had caught a fire had caught a fire and caused damage to Peter. However, if an exclusion clause had been present at the time of entering the contract as held in consequences of the case would have been different. As held in the case Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 reasonable notice of the clause was required to be provided by the Tafel to Peter to rely on it. However it has been clearly specified in section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act that goods must be of acceptable quality and this is statutory right that is granted to the consumers which cannot be curbed by any exemption clause as statutory law prevails over common law.
Conclusion:
Thus to conclude it can be stated that Tafel liability would not have been limited even by the incorporation of an exclusion clause.
Reference List:
Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
Hollier V Rambler Motors [1972] 2 AB 71
L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Unfair Contract terms Act 1977
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
