Issue

Describe about the Consumer Law and Policy in Australia and New Zealand?

JM is the managing director of JM Pvt. Ltd. The Company is into manufacturing of clothes. JM has bought fabric in bulk from Cloth Hall and Partners. JM is, however, not happy with the material that is delivered to him. He believes that the structure is not made up of the same material as described in the order. Based on the facts the issue that arises here is whether JM has rights under the Consumer Law of United Kingdom.

JM has purchased a television for his daughter. After three days of purchase of the television, the television was delivered to her house. On the 7^th day of purchase, the television stopped working. When JM files a complaint against the television company. The sales assistant of the television company states that there is nothing wrong on the television and that it was the customer’s fault to set up the tv.  Based on the facts here, the issue that arises is whether JM has rights under the Consumer Protection of United Kingdom.

JM has rights against the Company under the Consumer Law of UK. The Consumer Law of UK gives protection to a person who buys goods or services. A person may get protection under the Consumer Law in Australia when he is treated unfairly or when things go wrong. Some of the illegal acts on the part of the supplier include the following, defective goods, forged goods, poor service of products, problems with contractors, the problem with builders and bad traders. The aim behind the formation of a rule for protection of consumer rights includes:

Just terms of contract for goods and devices

Safety regulation of the products, to ensure that the customers who have bought the products are based on just conditions.

Management of fiscal issues, to ensure that the credit is cheap, and people understand their duties at the time of taking the loan (Adams 2013).

The Sales of Good Act and the supply of services are the necessary provisions that help to provide protection to the buyers. To give defense to customers the main legislations are, “The Sales of Good Act, 1979” and the “Supply of Goods and Services Act, 1982.” The Act on the sales of good provides protection to the buyers in cases where the seller does not have the power to trade the goods. This provision is explained in Section 12 of the Act. According to Section 13 of the Sales of Good Act, the goods that are sold based on the provided explanation, there is an implied assurance that the good will match to that description. The seller should ensure that the goods that are sold are fit for the purpose it is meant to be used for. (Section 14) However, if a good is sold based on a given sample, then there is an implied consent that the good will match that sample (Section 15).  The “Supply of Goods and Services Act”  is applicable in cases where the products are provided along with a service. Additionally, there are implied terms that the products sold must be sold with concern and diligence and where the price is not mentioned, the price of such a good id to be paid (Stoop and Chürr 2013).

Relevant Rules and Procedures

The Sales of Good Act provides protection to the buyer in the following ways, the seller must sell the goods in good condition, the goods sold must match the description at the time of making the description of the right, the goods sold must be of good superiority and the goods sold by sample must match the sample in quality. The protection of the rights of the buyers is contained in Section 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Sales of Good Act (Yiridoe 2012). 

The Act on the Sales of Good applies to all the contracts and for all kinds of sale. Section 14 of the Sales of Good Act is more restricted in its range and in that it applicable only where the products are sold at the time of executing business. These defenses are in the form legislative laws. This means that the Sales of Goods Act will put these terms in all the agreements for the sale of products no matter who are the parties to the contract. Section 12 of the Act is applicable to all kind of contracts where the “seller” has the right to sell, and the “buyer”  has the right to buy (James 2015).

In the case of Niblett v. Confectioners Material, the buyer filed a suit against the seller on the ground that the goods that were delivered were not matching the description of the basic goods. The Court held in this case that the buyer had no right to sell the goods, as proper permission was not obtained at the time of the possession of the goods. The seller was protected from selling good because of the suit of injunction (Ramsay 2012).

Section 12(2) (b) of the Act means that the buyer will enjoy the ownership of the goods. This helps in giving declaration that no one will interfere with the purchaser’s rights to possess or utilize the gifts. This is called “warranty.” In the case of, Microbeads v. Vinhurst Road Markings, the applicant bought some road making machines from the defendant. After the purchase had been executed, the third party filed a suit for infringement of patent. This meant that the applicant could not use the equipment unless they were granted a permit to do so. The breach of section 12 (1) was not done on the occasion of auction. However, the breach was executed when the buyer held actual possession of the goods (James 2015).

Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979 states that where a contract exists between the buyer and seller. Besides, the seller at the time of purchase of a good promises the buyer that the good is to match a particular description, and then there is an implied consent that it will match that description. In the case of, Harlington & Leinster v. Christopher Hull Fine Art, the plaintiff at the time of purchasing the good described the product in a particular way at the time of buying. However, later it was found that it did not match the description of the goods bought. This section has made it clear that it deals only with the description of the good and not the quality of the good. This was explained in cases like Acros v. Ranaason and Re Moore & Lanuder.

Application and Conclusion

Section 14 of the Act deals, “with the implied term as to quality.” This article is applicable only in situations where the “seller” has sold the goods in the course of the selling and not in private sales. However, there may be a deed for violation of an express term or misrepresentation in some cases. The liability under Section 14 is strict and is not dependent on proof of fault on the part of the seller. According to section 14 (2), certain limitations are provided on Section 14. Part 2C of section 14 states that the implied term does not make the quality of goods inadequate or unsatisfactory (Stoop and Chürr 2013).

This section applies to all sales by sample irrespective of whether it is a “private sale”, “consumer sale” or “sale of business.”  Section 15 (2) of the Act states that when a buyer buys goods from the seller then there is an implied condition that the good will match the quality with the sample. Additionally, the products are also to be free from any defect making the quality of the good product or unsatisfactory. This section relates only to the quality of the good and not to other matters such as color.

In the famous case of Feldaroll Foundry Plc v. Hermes Leasing Ltd, the defendant filed an appeal concerning the defective car sold on a hire purchase agreement.  The buyer agreed to the purchase of the car via hire. The car was to be used by the managing director of the buyer. Subsequently, the car was defective and it was returned to the dealer. The Judge concluded that the claimant had been entitled to reject the car properly. The appeal was however dismissed.

Application and Conclusion:

JM can file a suit under Section 13, 14 and 15 of the Sales of Good act, 1979. In the first scenario, JM can file a suit for compensation from Cloth Hall and Partners. Since the material, that he purchased did not match with the description that was provided to him. Section 14 of the Act clearly states that if the description of a particular good does not match with good that is bought then he is seller is liable for compensation under section 13 and 14.

In the second scenario, JM can file a suit under section 14 of the Act. This section is applicable in cases where the seller does not sell goods in the course of a business.  This section gives implied term as to quality. In the given scenario, the television that was purchased does not match with the description provided. This hinders the quality of the product that was purchased.

Reference List:

Adams, B., 2013. Consumer Law And Policy In Australia And New Zealand [Book Review].

Glover, P.A., 2013. An examination of the application of the consumer protection and antitrust regime of the Commonwealth of Australia to the international regimes governing the carriage of goods by sea.

Greenwood, V. and Dwyer, L., 2015. Consumer protection as essential to destination competitiveness.

Guirguis, A. and Newton, A., 2013. Consumer law: Consumer watchdog wins unconscionable conduct appeal.

Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564 

James, S.W., 2015. Beyond ‘local’food: how supermarkets and consumer choice affect the economic viability of smallâ€Âscale family farms in Sydney, Australia. Area.

Kelly, A., 2015. Consumer credit law: Payday lending practices: Why unethical loans are harming the vulnerable.

Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Markings [1975] 1 WLR

Niblett Ltd v Confectioners’ Materials Co Ltd, [1921]

Oliver, J., 2014. When consumer goods turn bad: Mandatory reporting under the Australian Consumer Law.

Ramsay, I., 2012. Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer markets. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Stoop, P.N. and Chürr, C., 2013. Unpacking the right to plain and understandable language in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, 16(5), pp.01-42.

Yiridoe, E.K., 2014. Social acceptance of wind energy development and planning in rural communities of Australia: A consumer analysis. Energy Policy, 74, pp.262-270.