Z problematyki ochrony konsumenta w angielskim prawie prywatnym
Loading...
Date
1969
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM
Title alternative
Consumer Protection in English Private Law
Abstract
The paper deals with the problem of the consumer protection under the law
of contract and the law of torts. The first part of the article contains basic informations
on the consumer movement in the United Kingdom (consumer organizations,
the government and the consumer, protective legislation outside the private
law).
The changes in the attitude towards the consumer are reflected both in legislation
and case law. So far as the law of sale is concerned, the traditional common
law rule was that there was no legal obligation on the vendor to inform the
buyer that he was under a mistake not induced by the act of the seller. The first
statutory act that limited the ill consequences of this harsh rule was introduced in 1893. By the Sale of Goods Act a condition is implied that the goods will be reasonably
fit for the customers purpose, if the buyer makes known to the seller the
purpose for which he requires the goods, so as to show that he relies on the
seller's choice, and the goods are of a description which the seller ordinarily supplies.
As a rule the consumer's rights against the seller do not extend beyond
a cash compensation. There is no doubt that the right for rescission is primarily
a consumer's remedy and its limitation by the Sale of Goods Act has evoked sharp
criticism among legal writers.
Another important statute, the acts governing hire purchase agreements lay
down conditions limiting some of ill efects of modern marketing and advertising
on the consumer's choice. The most important of these provisions are: the agreement
must be in writing; if the contract is made at buyers home he has three
days within which he can withdraw; advertisements relating to goods on hire
purchase must show full details of the terms, if one or more important figure
is shown (such as deposit).
One of the latest examples of the evolution on the field of the law of contract
is the Misrepresentation Act of 1967. Its main purpose is to give an effective
remedy to the person who was induced to contract by some misleading statement.
It must be emphasized that the Act has introduced several proposals made by the
Commitee on Consumer Protection.
The protective legislation has resulted in a widespread use of various forms
of exemption clauses by mass producing and marketing enterprisers. These disclaimers
of liability usually appear in the printed clauses of standard forms, so called
guarantees, on labels attached to goods, etc. In order to protect the consumer the
case law seem to recognize the need for developing a number of restrictive rules
of construction peculiar to exemption clauses.
In earlier times the producer of the manufacture usually sold it to the consumer.
Thus the latter, being in privity of contract with the maker, was entitled
to sue the producer for losses caused by the defects of the product. The new forms
of distribution of goods has changed the legal position of the buyer who is no
longer in privity with the producer. Hence courts and legislators are confronted
with the problem of finding a satisfactory solution of protecting the legitimate
interests of the injured ultimate consumer in cases where he is unable to get
recovery from the retailer. Before 1932 it was rather doubtful whether there
was any liability on the part of the producer to the ultimate consumer of his
product with whom there was no contractual link. But in that year the decision
of the House of Lords in the most celebrated case Donoghue v. Stevenson established
that the manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the ultimate
consumer or user. The principle has been gradually extended to include repairers,
assemblers and builders.
Description
Sponsor
Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016
Keywords
Citation
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 31, 1969, z. 1, s. 129-143