Amber Pretty Exercise
Essay Title A – Amber Pretty exercise
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was passed to give effect to the Directive. Compare the rights and remedies given by the Act with those available in Contract and Tort. Consider in the light of this comparison whether the Act has succeeded in its main aims.
-------------------------------------------------
Defective products, which cause damage, can give rise to liability and this traditionally arose under the common law. However, the common law approach places the burden on the claimant to establish that the defendant owes a duty to him, was in breach of that duty and that they suffered damages as a result of that breach, and it may not always be straightforward to establish causation, especially when the defect arose on part of the manufacturer. Claims may also arise in Contract law under statutory devices, such as the Supply of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Establishing causation by the claimant on defective products has somewhat been corrected by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) came into force on 15 May 1987, giving effect to the EC Directive 85/374/EEC. It prohibits the manufacture and supply of unsafe goods, imposes strict liability on producers, own-branders and importers of defective products, making them responsible for the defects found in their products. S 2(1) of the CPA 1987 only requires that the claimant show that the defective product was responsible for his injuries.
In Negligence, the claimant has to show that there was a duty of care, that it was breached by the manufacturer, that they suffered damages as a result of that breach and the loss is not too remote. Under S 2(1) of CPA 1987, the claimant only has to show that he has suffered a loss or damage caused by a defective in a product by the defendant. CPA 1987 extends consumer rights, as it does not require the claimant to prove that
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was passed to give effect to the Directive. Compare the rights and remedies given by the Act with those available in Contract and Tort. Consider in the light of this comparison whether the Act has succeeded in its main aims.
-------------------------------------------------
Defective products, which cause damage, can give rise to liability and this traditionally arose under the common law. However, the common law approach places the burden on the claimant to establish that the defendant owes a duty to him, was in breach of that duty and that they suffered damages as a result of that breach, and it may not always be straightforward to establish causation, especially when the defect arose on part of the manufacturer. Claims may also arise in Contract law under statutory devices, such as the Supply of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Establishing causation by the claimant on defective products has somewhat been corrected by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) came into force on 15 May 1987, giving effect to the EC Directive 85/374/EEC. It prohibits the manufacture and supply of unsafe goods, imposes strict liability on producers, own-branders and importers of defective products, making them responsible for the defects found in their products. S 2(1) of the CPA 1987 only requires that the claimant show that the defective product was responsible for his injuries.
In Negligence, the claimant has to show that there was a duty of care, that it was breached by the manufacturer, that they suffered damages as a result of that breach and the loss is not too remote. Under S 2(1) of CPA 1987, the claimant only has to show that he has suffered a loss or damage caused by a defective in a product by the defendant. CPA 1987 extends consumer rights, as it does not require the claimant to prove that