Consumer law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Consumer law - Essay ExampleOne of the problems, which will be analyzed using General Product synthetic rubber Regulations (GPSR) 2005 for guaranteed safety of a point of intersection bought will do with Kingsley purchasing a luxury coffee machine for Miriams drive from Home Appliances Limited (HAL). in that location is also the gaucherie of Kingsley, engaging the services of Ben to provide a specified kind of wallpaper for his room, which had been advertised on television. Under the Sale of Goods issue, 1979, a purchaser is entitled and has the right to receiving exactly what he or she prefers from a seller2 but it turns out that this is not what happened to Kingsley. In the last case, which talks about Consumer Protection Act, Kingsley had at rest(p) to purchase a dog, which was advertised to be a pedigree dog. The dog was also said to be a very friendly dog that would imprint a wonder companion of the family as a family pet. However, two months after buying the dog, it tu rns out that the dog is not a pedigree but a crossbreed turning out to be a very dangerous dog. LUXURY COFFEE MACHINE As part of consumer law and practice and by statutes in the General Product Safety Regulations, 2005, consumers are given maximum protection from defective crossroads, such that the mere fact that a consumer shows that a product was faulty and thus caused damage should be enough to guarantee a substantiated claim3. Before, consumers had to prove negligence by the manufacturers of the products before their claims could be substantiated4. In relation to the case of the purchased made by Kingsley, it would be noted that the safety of the product purchase was not fully guaranteed because it caused both damage and harm. The product became damaged in the track of its usage, whiles the user of the product suffered physical harm. Clearly, the level of damage caused is only possible in electrical appliances that have faults because of the level of hotness that was recorded5 . In Abouzaid v. Mothercare (UK) Ltd., 2001, claimants mother purchased a Cosytoes sleeping bag, which was designed to be attached to a childs pushchair with elastic straps but whiles fixing the product with his mother, one of the elastic straps slipped and lashed back, causing permanent eye damage to the user. Though the claim of damages in negligence was overruled by the court, it was held that Mothercare Ltd was still liable under the Consumer Protection Act strict liability provision because defect in the product is always a major consideration over the level of care exercised by the consumer and in the case of defect in the product, exercise of care may not necessarily protect the manufacturer from ensuring that there are no defects with their products6. Based on the case law available and the binding legislation, a number of considerations will be made when giving advice for the case of Kingsley and Miriam. In the first place, the fact that the product purchased is electrical equipment means that the case comes under the range of goods covered by safety regulations. Secondly, safety regulations are binding on both new and bet on hand products and so the product is also covered in this case. Specifically, the fact that the luxury coffee machine caused damage and harm by becoming to a fault hot means that the product was not well insulated7. Meanwhile, under both the General Product Safety Regulations (2005) and Consumer Protection Act, 1987, it is required that electrical equipm