Case study 1: Contracts for the supply of goods / services / digital content
Issues
- Whether the damages as a matter of law should be recoverable from Toasty
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for not delivering what was on the description as provided by House Fire Plc
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for the damaged carpet in the restaurant and the cold ambience
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for the damaged smart phone after the phone became corruptible and unusable.
Rule
Under the Consumer Protection Act a product is considered to be defective where t is mot according to the expected standard. The applicable laws on liability for defective products is the Consumer Protection Act 2017, Sale of Goods Act 1987 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Analysis of Facts and Law
The buyer of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is given two options upon purchase of defective goods that is to either reject the goods, ask for a refund or terminate the contract. The goods that are sold mut correspond to the description and must be of satisfactory quality as outlined under section 1 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.Product liability claim may be premised under the Consumer Protection Act in negligence emanating from breach of contract. To be able to prove their claims they will have to prove that the defendant in this case Toasty owed them a duty of care and that there was breach of that duty because of the failure to tackle reasonable care. The breach must have resulted in the damages and the chain of causation should not be broken.
For an action that is premised under breach of contract the byer may claim that the produt that was supplied was not satisfactory as outlined under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.Steveand his team have so far installed three units so far and the units have proved not satisfactory as all the customers have complained that they are faulty in one way or another.
Whether the damages as a matter of law should be recoverable from Toasty
The answer is yes. Since the consumer if protected by the Consumer Protection At the primary li ability for defective goods rest with the producer of the goods. However, liability is strict and therefore the consumer ca be able to make a claim against the distributor, retailer or the supplier of the goods instead.
Whether the company could be held liable for the damaged smart phone after the phone became corruptible and unusable
Yes, the company could be held liable for the damaged smart phone. The assessment of liability depends on the facts of the case. In this case the unit was installed into the house of the couple and the application resulted in the damaged phone. Therefore, the risk could not have been avoided as the application as necessary to operate the unit. In Faisal and another v Younis (trading as Safa Superstore) and another (2018) EWCH 1111 (QB)the court held that the retailer was jointly and severally liable for the damages in the same way as the manufacturer of the product. For Dan to prove that the company is liable for the damaged phone and that he should be compensated he must show that the harm is one that was foreseeable. The claimant need only prove that Toasty was at fault and should be held responsible for the defect as outlined in Gee & Others v DuPuy International Limited (2018) EWCH 1208.The breach by the company must have resulted in the damage claimed by the claimant. Therefore, the claim by Dan will only be successful as against the company where he discharges the burden of proof on a balance of probability.
Whether Toasty could be held liable for not delivering what was on the description as provided by House Fire Plc
On the part of the elderly women the product that was supplied did not correspond to the description that was given by the leaflet supplied. The Consumer Protection Act under section 11 provides that where a product is sold by description then it must correspond to that description. The Consumer Protection Act under section 31(1) restricts a business form escaping liability for any consumer breach arising from an implied term.
Therefore, Toasty could be held liable for the defective product as the suppler and the person that marketed the product and signaled the same to the consumer. Liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 could either rest on the producer (section 2(1) and also even through Toasty in this case was the supplier (section 2(3) they can nevertheless be held li able where the supplier is unable to identify who is the manufacture of the product. The claimants in this case will bear the burden of proving on a balance of probability that the product was defective and resulted on the damages that they have suffered.
Conclusion
Even though the company is not the manufacturer of the product, liability will result form its supply and marketing of the product. They ought to have known that the product was defective ad should have tested the product before starting to signal it in the premises and homes of its clientele. Thus, the company will be liable in this cases study for all the damages that have been occasioned because of the defective units installed.
Reference list
Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Faisal and another v Younis (trading as Safa Superstore) and another [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB)
Gee & Others v DuPuy International Limited (2018) EWCH 1208
Sale of Goods At 1979
Case study 1: Contracts for the supply of goods / services / digital content
Issues
- Whether the damages as a matter of law should be recoverable from Toasty
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for not delivering what was on the description as provided by House Fire Plc
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for the damaged carpet in the restaurant and the cold ambience
- Whether Toasty could be held liable for the damaged smart phone after the phone became corruptible and unusable.
Rule
Under the Consumer Protection Act a product is considered to be defective where t is mot according to the expected standard. The applicable laws on liability for defective products is the Consumer Protection Act 2017, Sale of Goods Act 1987 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Analysis of Facts and Law
The buyer of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is given two options upon purchase of defective goods that is to either reject the goods, ask for a refund or terminate the contract. The goods that are sold mut correspond to the description and must be of satisfactory quality as outlined under section 1 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.Product liability claim may be premised under the Consumer Protection Act in negligence emanating from breach of contract. To be able to prove their claims they will have to prove that the defendant in this case Toasty owed them a duty of care and that there was breach of that duty because of the failure to tackle reasonable care. The breach must have resulted in the damages and the chain of causation should not be broken.
For an action that is premised under breach of contract the byer may claim that the produt that was supplied was not satisfactory as outlined under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.Steveand his team have so far installed three units so far and the units have proved not satisfactory as all the customers have complained that they are faulty in one way or another.
Whether the damages as a matter of law should be recoverable from Toasty
The answer is yes. Since the consumer if protected by the Consumer Protection At the primary li ability for defective goods rest with the producer of the goods. However, liability is strict and therefore the consumer ca be able to make a claim against the distributor, retailer or the supplier of the goods instead.
Whether the company could be held liable for the damaged smart phone after the phone became corruptible and unusable
Yes, the company could be held liable for the damaged smart phone. The assessment of liability depends on the facts of the case. In this case the unit was installed into the house of the couple and the application resulted in the damaged phone. Therefore, the risk could not have been avoided as the application as necessary to operate the unit. In Faisal and another v Younis (trading as Safa Superstore) and another (2018) EWCH 1111 (QB)the court held that the retailer was jointly and severally liable for the damages in the same way as the manufacturer of the product. For Dan to prove that the company is liable for the damaged phone and that he should be compensated he must show that the harm is one that was foreseeable. The claimant need only prove that Toasty was at fault and should be held responsible for the defect as outlined in Gee & Others v DuPuy International Limited (2018) EWCH 1208.The breach by the company must have resulted in the damage claimed by the claimant. Therefore, the claim by Dan will only be successful as against the company where he discharges the burden of proof on a balance of probability.
Whether Toasty could be held liable for not delivering what was on the description as provided by House Fire Plc
On the part of the elderly women the product that was supplied did not correspond to the description that was given by the leaflet supplied. The Consumer Protection Act under section 11 provides that where a product is sold by description then it must correspond to that description. The Consumer Protection Act under section 31(1) restricts a business form escaping liability for any consumer breach arising from an implied term.
Therefore, Toasty could be held liable for the defective product as the suppler and the person that marketed the product and signaled the same to the consumer. Liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 could either rest on the producer (section 2(1) and also even through Toasty in this case was the supplier (section 2(3) they can nevertheless be held li able where the supplier is unable to identify who is the manufacture of the product. The claimants in this case will bear the burden of proving on a balance of probability that the product was defective and resulted on the damages that they have suffered.
Conclusion
Even though the company is not the manufacturer of the product, liability will result form its supply and marketing of the product. They ought to have known that the product was defective ad should have tested the product before starting to signal it in the premises and homes of its clientele. Thus, the company will be liable in this cases study for all the damages that have been occasioned because of the defective units installed.
Reference list
Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Faisal and another v Younis (trading as Safa Superstore) and another [2018] EWHC 1111 (QB)
Gee & Others v DuPuy International Limited (2018) EWCH 1208
Sale of Goods At 1979
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
