Impact of the Consumer Rights Act Essay Sample

Introduction To The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Has Significantly Improved Consumer Rights In Relation

The Consumer Protection Law of the United Kingdom has experienced a substantial improvement with the progress of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 basically about the different product that is out of expectation level. The major purpose of this research paper is to investigate numerous factors related to the CRA, basically a comparison with the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979 which has been revised by the recent Act of 2015.

The entire study process will try to investigate different types of misrepresentation like careless, innocent, and dishonest, and differentiate them from options, that all have another legal standing. We will use a condemnatory perspective to evaluate how the CRA has acknowledged the long-standing remonstrance of the SOGA, or how the CRA has not responded. In this entire analysis process, both CRA and SOGA Acts will be examined, with a significance on advancements made practicable by the CRA as well as its imperfection. This paper will also explore the relationship in between the conventional common law concept and CRA, as well as the enormous context of different commercial law. Here involves a condemnatory analysis of legislation as it was managed before the time of 2014, understanding the degree of innovation in this prospect with the help of CRA as well as how it provides a helping hand to protect consumer rights. Analysis and understanding of this, the paper expected to present an in-depth examination of the improvement of customer rights law in the United Kingdom and also examine how positively CRA has worked to tame all the shortcomings of the SOGA and offer light on specific areas for future times reforms.

Incorporation of terms

The consumer could be in the form of a natural person that has the right on the purchasethe materials and products from the market. With the clarity and ease of understanding of the legislation, firms may confidently sell to customers and consumers can make purchases. When disagreements do occur issues can now be resolved more swiftly and affordably^[1]. Hence, the case of “PM Supplies (Essex) Ltd v Devon County Council (1991)” has been providing an overview of the Consumer Rights Act in the context of the protecting the consumer delegation in the business societies. Furthermore, the consumer has the right to under the act covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to make the legal decision against the misleaders^[2].

The current law stipulates that the trader must have the authority to sell or hire the goods and that the consumer must meet certain requirements, including being of acceptable quality, fit for purpose, matching descriptions or samples that have been supplied, and free from third parties rights. Furthermore, the law as it stands now treats these issues as "implied terms" of a contract. Implied terms are those that are included in a contract but are not specifically stated in it has been known as "express terms". Furthermore, sections 9-17 describe the contract role agreement with the having of the proper goods purchasing from the individual or any firms.

The section 103 has stated that the common law remedy of monetary recompense given by one party to the other is referred to as "damages". For instance, the court may compel a trader to compensate a consumer for damages if the trader violates a term that this Part mandates be regarded as part of a contract. In addition, an award of damages for breach of contract is typically meant to make up for the losses incurred by the aggrieved party. Moreover, the court may grant damages in specific circumstances that go beyond just making up for the consumer's losses.

Fraudulent misrepresentation

In the UK, misrepresentation which deals with false claims made by one party to induce the other to enter into a contract is a fundamental component of contract law. It is deemed fraudulent misrepresentation when a seller knowingly provides false information. In such cases, the consumer may terminate the contract and also seek damages. If a statement is made carelessly and isn't thoroughly checked for accuracy, it's deemed negligent misrepresentation. Smith v. Hughes (1871) case highlights how crucial it is to distinguish between error and misrepresentation. It emphasized that it is the buyer's duty to find flaws and made it clear that, in the absence of misrepresentation, a seller is not accountable for the buyer's incorrect assumptions.

In Spice Girls Ltd. v. Aprilia World Service BV (2000), the idea of a "continuing representation" was at issue. The Spice Girls made a material misrepresentation when they said they wouldn't reveal that one of their members was leaving the group, and the court found that this breached their fiduciary duty. Rogerson v. Royscot Trust Ltd. (1991) states the Misrepresentation Act of 1967, this case increased the amount of damages that could be awarded in cases of misrepresentation. The court decided that even in cases where misrepresentation was only careless or innocent, damages under the Act might be computed in the same way as if it had been fraudulent. The intentional making of a false statement, regardless of its truthfulness, with confidence in its authenticity or casually, is considered fraudulent misrepresentation under UK law. In the case of "Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd" the court determined that a fraudulent misrepresentation has a significant influence on the amount of money awarded for damages. The court determined that damages should be computed based on the fact that the claimant's circumstances would have been the same had the misrepresentation not been made.

Negligent misrepresentation

A false statement that is made carelessly or without a solid basis for being true and results in loss or injury to another person is deemed negligent misrepresentation under UK law. The case of “JEB Fasteners Ltd v. Marks Bloom & Co. (1983)” concerned the duty of care owed through an accountant when compiling a company's accounts. It has been determined that in the event that the accounts were written carelessly, the accountant owed the business and its shareholders a duty of care.

In the 1976 case Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Mardon, Esso was found to have made a careless representation about the possible sales volume of a petrol station. Mardon depended on Esso's unique knowledge and experience, and Esso was held accountable for careless misrepresentation. The Williams v. Natural Life Health Foods Ltd. case from 1998 dealt with a company's and its directors' liability for careless misrepresentation. It was decided that a director could only be held personally accountable if the claimant held them accountable.

What a statement of opinion is and how it is different from misrepresentation

A statement that is misleading due to omissions is likewise covered by the definition of misrepresentation. For example, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York concluded in Striker v. Graham Pest Control Co. that the sellers' agent's failure to disclose a carpenter ant infestation constituted misrepresentation. This is due to the fact that in situations where there is a need to divulge relevant information that omitting to disclose a material fact could be considered affirmative misrepresentation. Similarly, in the case of Drew v. Sylvan Learning Centre, Corp., a New York state court found that the tutoring service had committed misrepresentation by omission by neglecting to reveal that their definition of "grade level" has been based on their own standards rather than the widely accepted standards of the public school system. This illustrates the significant legal repercussions and misleading status that significant omissions from marketing materials or representations can have.

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

Sales of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979

The Sale of Products Act (SOGA) 1979 has been found as significant component of UK legislation that governs the sales of purchases. In addition, it outlines a number of duties, privileges, and legal safeguards that are relevant to product sales. When things are sold by description, they must, in accordance with Section 13 of SOGA, match the description. According to Section 14(2), the goods sold have to be of a sufficient calibre. In "Godley v. Perry (1960)," a broken catapult resulted in harm to a child. The court decided that the catapult was not good enough. In the 1939 case of Griffiths v. Peter Conway Ltd., a woman stated that her skin had become inflamed by a Harris Tweed cloak. The court ruled that the coat was not suitable for wear. "Merchandable quality" was the term used in SOGA prior to "satisfactory quality." It talks about goods being appropriate for their primary purpose of marketing. In "Baldry v. Marshall (1925)," an automobile that could be driven but wasn't intended for long-distance driving was at issue. It was determined that the quality could not be sold.

Criticisms stated and solutions

Section 14 is classed as a condition in consumer sales but an innominate term in non-consumer transactions under the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979. This section primarily relates to business transactions because it only covers sales of goods in a business setting—private sales are not covered. Although private goods sales are exempt from Section 14's requirements, misrepresentation or breaking a particular contract provision may still result in issues. The application of common law has been extremely beneficial to the protection of consumer rights. Prior to and during the passage of SOGA and other consumer protection laws, common law ideas such as fraud, deception, and implied terms in contracts have been essential in protecting the rights of consumers. One benefit of common law is its adaptability to changing social, technological, and economic circumstances. Common law's adaptability has allowed it to handle novel types of sales transactions and connections that statutes may not have explicitly addressed.

Show the common law improvement

Common law has assisted in fostering various features, like jurisdictions and responsiveness, through the use of consumer and sales of goods laws. This enhancement has shown to be crucial for comprehending and applying statutory provisions, such as those included in the Sale of Goods Act, to real-world scenarios. The fundamental principle of common law, precedent, has ensured consistency and predictability in court rulings, fostering a stable legal environment that encourages trade. This stability is crucial because it provides both firms and consumers with a clear understanding of their rights and obligations in business transactions. Additionally, because common law is flexible enough to address new and complex issues in consumer interactions, it can keep up with evolving market conditions and technological advancements. The common law's role in upholding justice and fairness in the business sector, ensuring consumer safety and market trust, is highlighted by its ongoing evolution.

Criticism of the law (before 2014) Talk about commercial law

The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979 and the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, two important pieces of UK consumer legislation, have different features and areas of emphasis. The groundwork was established by SOGA 1979, which was mainly focused on the sale of goods and implied terms regarding the satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, and correspondence to description of goods. Repair, replacement, or refund were among the remedies for breach; however, these were not as clearly stated as they were in later legislation.

Consumer Right Act

What it does (comparison of soga and cra)

On the other hand, the CRA 2015 represented a noteworthy development. As a reflection of the demands of the digital age, it expanded the scope beyond only commodities to encompass services and digital content. This Act defined a breach more precisely and provided more precise remedies, including a 30-day short-term right of rejection, repair, or replacement, as well as additional rights to price reduction or contract rejection. Additionally, it made consumer contracts and notices more equitable and transparent. The change from SOGA to CRA represents a move towards more thorough and transparent consumer protection, keeping up with the complexity and technology innovations of contemporary trade. This development shows a dedication to making sure that consumer rights are strong and applicable in the fast-paced commercial world of today. The best way to comprehend the practical implementation of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 and the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979 is to look through the prism of seminal case law. Important instances like “Baldry v. Marshall (1925)” and “Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills (1936)” stand out in the field of SOGA. A consumer's health problems were caused by a chemical residue in knickers that she had purchased, and this led to a finding in “Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills” that the items were not of merchantable quality a fundamental SOGA premise. “Baldry v. Marshall”, in which a vehicle intended for long-distance travel was found unsuitable for this particular use, shed more light on SOGA's restrictions.

Moving on to the CRA 2015, instances such as “Richardson v Facebook (2015)” became pertinent as it broadened consumer rights to cover digital material and services. One of the first cases to use the CRA, this one dealt with deceptive Facebook ads and brought attention to problems with the quality of digital content. Furthermore, the Act's wider applicability beyond traditional commodities as demonstrated by “Which v. Qualcomm (2021)”, a court lawsuit brought by consumer group Which against Qualcomm, alleging violations of the CRA relating to inflated prices for smartphone components.

Analysing changes

The EU Consumer Rights Directive's implementation in October 2011 mandated that consumers be fully informed prior to entering into any contracts. The "Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013" have now been used in the UK to apply the majority of the Directive's obligations. Hence, the core consumer right has been conceived as the “Right to get what you pay for” that indicated the all details regarding the primary attributes of the products, including claims made in labels or advertisements, to be included in the contract. Apart from that, the another right is under the “Right that digital content is fit for purpose” For paid content including when paid with "virtual" currencies as well as content that is given away for free with paid goods, services, or other digital content such as apps, in-app purchases, and open source software there ought to be a distinct set of rights and remedies specifically for digital content. Draft provisions have been made to provide for potential future developments for instances content supplied in exchange for customer data.

Criticism of the CRA Post (2015)

In contrast to the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) 1979, certain sections of the law were modified and enhanced by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. Consolidating consumer rights also led to a big adjustment that made the law easier to understand and more accessible. The CRA offers a comprehensive framework for consumer protection for services and digital content in addition to covering product sales. Additional consumer remedies were also provided by the Act, such as the right to a refund or price reduction in the event that repairs or replacements are deemed impractical. Raising consumer and trader knowledge of the rights that all EU consumers are entitled to as a result of national laws implementing EU directives is the campaign's main objective. The commission has deliberated on other Directives, including the UCPD, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, and the Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, in order to validate the comprehension of the Consumer Rights Act, given the particular focus on the CRD.

The criticism of soga still applies to the CRA as it did not improve much of the earlier problems.

“Balding v Lew Ways Ltd (1995)” is one of the cases that described the safety regulation with the having of the SOGA and the CRA in the perspectives of their right. In this instance, a toy tricycle with a protrusion that might have injured someone violated the Toys Safety Regulations. Based on a test report showing compliance with the applicable British/European Standard, the corporation asserted a defence. The product's compliance with the regulations' "Essential Safety Requirements" has not been inquired about by the corporation. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to presume that a published standard demonstrates conformity with the law. On the other hand, “Geoffrey Garret v Boots Chemist Ltd (1980)” Pencils and Graphic Instruments (Safety) Regulations 1974 brought charges against the defendants, who were retailers, for peddling pencils that had an excessive amount of heavy metal. The defendants contended that they had taken "all reasonable precautions," noting that they had made it a requirement of their contract with the suppliers that the pencils adhere to these rules as well as informed the suppliers of the existence of the rules. However, Boots had the option to use random sampling under these conditions, whether or not it was statistically controlled. This sampling may or may not have identified the issue, although it should have been done in a reasonable manner, and Boots has been unable to establish the defence as a result of not doing so. In cases of contract violation but no loss a court may grant nominal damages or aggravated damages to make up for emotional distress. In general, damages for a breach of a term that this Part requires to be deemed contained in the contract are meant to return the consumer to the same position as if the breach had never occurred. The particular circumstances and the terms that the trader violated will determine the amount of damages assessed.

Conclusion

With the passing of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumer rights in the UK have experienced major change, particularly with regard to goods that fall short of expectations. This Act has restored clarity and reinforced the legal framework, providing greater protection for consumers. There was a good reason to be critical of business law before 2014, which highlighted the need for a more modern, flexible, and comprehensive legal framework. The Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was passed in response to these concerns, represented a significant improvement in resolving many of these issues. Better remedies, greater safeguards for digital content, and more specific definitions of terms were provided to customers.

But the legal landscape must always evolve. The rapid evolution of technology and the increasing global integration of trade necessitate ongoing legal framework improvement and adjustment. Future amendments should focus on bolstering digital rights, further reducing legalese for greater accessibility, and ensuring that laws adapt to shifting consumer trends and expectations.

References

• Balding v Lew-Ways Limited (1995) 159 JP 541 - S 39 CPA - TSR.
• Garrett v Boots The Chemists Ltd (1980) 88 ITSA MR 238.
• EWHC 3154 (QB)
• 1382/7/7/21 Consumers' Association v Qualcomm Incorporated
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - [1935] UKPCHCA 1 - 54 CLR 49; [1936] AC 85; 9 ALJR 351 - BarNet Jade
• Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd | [1969] EWCA Civ 2
• commission europa.eu, ‘Consumer Rights and Complaints' (commission.europa.eu14 November 2023) <https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints_en>
• Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015' (GOV.UK20 October 2016) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-rights-act-2015/consumer-rights-act-2015>
• legislation gov.uk, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>
• Citizens Advice, ‘The Consumer Rights Act 2015' (www.citizensadvice.org.uk2015) <https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/our-work/citizens-advice-consumer-work/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/>.
• Gov.uk legislation, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes#:~:text=Consolidates%20and%20aligns%20the%20currently> accessed 13 November 2023.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes#:~:text=Consolidates%20and%20aligns%20the%20currently> accessed 13 November 2023.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes#:~:text=Consolidates%20and%20aligns%20the%20currently> accessed 13 November 2023.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes#:~:text=Consolidates%20and%20aligns%20the%20currently> accessed 13 November 2023.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Explanatory Notes' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes#:~:text=Consolidates%20and%20aligns%20the%20currently> accessed 13 November 2023.
• European Commission, ‘Press Corner' (European Commission - European Commission24 December 2020) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2532>.
• Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd | [1969] EWCA Civ 2
• Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, ‘Consumer Rights Act 2015' (GOV.UK20 October 2016) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-rights-act-2015/consumer-rights-act-2015>.
• Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Sale of Goods Act 1979' (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/14> accessed 14 November 2023.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• ICO.org.uk, ‘What Is Valid Consent?' (ico.org.uk19 May 2023) <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/what-is-valid-consent/>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• ICO.org.uk, ‘What Is Valid Consent?' (ico.org.uk19 May 2023) <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/consent/what-is-valid-consent/>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• ^[19] Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - [1935] UKPCHCA 1 - 54 CLR 49; [1936] AC 85; 9 ALJR 351 - BarNet Jade.
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd - [1935] UKPCHCA 1 - 54 CLR 49; [1936] AC 85; 9 ALJR 351 - BarNet Jade.
• EWHC 3154 (QB)
• 1382/7/7/21 Consumers' Association v Qualcomm Incorporated |
• Europa.eu commission, ‘Consumer Rights and Complaints' (commission.europa.eu14 November 2023) <https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints_en>.
• Europa.eu commission, ‘Consumer Rights and Complaints' (commission.europa.eu14 November 2023) <https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints_en>.
• europa.eu commission, ‘Consumer Rights and Complaints' (commission.europa.eu14 November 2023) <https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints_en>.
• gov. UK legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• Balding v Lew-Ways Limited (1995) 159 JP 541 - S 39 CPA - TSR.
• Balding v Lew-Ways Limited (1995) 159 JP 541 - S 39 CPA - TSR.
• Garrett v Boots The Chemists Ltd (1980) 88 ITSA MR 238.
• Garrett v Boots The Chemists Ltd (1980) 88 ITSA MR 238.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.
• gov.uk legislation, ‘ARRANGEMENT of SECTIONS PART I CONTRACTS to WmcH ACT APPLIES Section' (2023) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/pdfs/ukpga_19790054_en.pdf>.