The Consumer Rights Act 2015

The development of consumerism during the "Thatcher" years since developed in several directions it reflecting the changing interest of different subgroups over time it resulted in the diversity of aims and practice.

A customer requested a cash refund for a two year old used item. I was unable to grant her request but was able to give a store credit. Although I followed policy, I struggled ethically with this incident. She was within her rights to request a refund; however, waiting years to return an item seemed less than prudent. The customer was dissatisfied, but I politely acknowledged her disappointment and made sure to explain the situation.

The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) was established to protect consumers in any legal trading activities in Australia. A set of guarantees has also been introduced for those consumers who are acquiring goods and services from Australian suppliers, importers or manufacturers. The guarantees are intended to ensure that consumers will receive the goods or services they have paid for. If they have problems with the products and services they bought, they are entitled for remedies, such as repair, replacement, and refund.

Sales of goods act requires traders to sell goods that are as they are described and of satisfactory quality. It also

A consumer defined in the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) is ‘any person who acquires goods and services from a supplier’. The Industrial Revolution resulted in most goods being mass produced; often with little or no contact between manufacturer and consumer. This meant that the law moved from the laissez-faire approach (leaving things to take their own course) to consumer affairs and notion of caveat emptor (Latin for Let buyer beware). Due to the never ending failure of laissez-failure approach, a number of legal and non-legal measures were introduced which had different levels of effectiveness in achieving justice for consumers. Government regulation such as Trade Practises Act which includes Advertising and Marketing regulation, Fair

The essay will firstly explore what is clearly working within the system in support of protecting consumer rights. The ACL will be looked at in detail with a focus on product safety as an example.

All staff members can use their judgement and refund an additional 10% of the value of the faulty product up to a maximum value of $25.

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

Another viewpoint on why consumer literacy is so important is that there are many problems associated

The UK is making a consumer rights measures to allow people to claim for compensation for faulty digital games, music and movies. Because all games when bought are not owned by the customer they just have the right to use the game. If they cannot use the game they want it to be able to be returned. What they are proposing is:

S.14 also states that the seller of the goods must ensure that the goods sold are of satisfactory quality and also fit for purpose. That is the daily purpose and other purposes that were specifically agreed upon between the seller and buyer. The buyer is entitled to make a claim under the SOGA where the goods fail to meet the requirement of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose the buyer is entitled to make a claim

In this assignment I will explain the implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 ss12-14 inclusive and analyse the effectiveness and application of these sections. Furthermore I will use relevant case law and academic research to support my arguments.

Section 14 Is where the seller sells goods in the course of a business; there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. Sub section (2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. Sub section (2B) relates to the quality of goods and includes their state and condition and (a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, (b) appearance and finish, (c) freedom from minor defects, (d) safety, and (e) durability, are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods. As in the case Stevenson v Rogers (1999) Rogers was a fisherman and sold his fishing boat to Stevenson, who brought an action

The four year old van Bill brought from Arthur’s Cars ‘broke down twice in two weeks’ after purchase, this serves as evidence to the fact that the goods were not reasonably durable when they were supplied. Goods are satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, Section 14 (2B) of the Sale of Goods Act (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002) presents that durability is a factor to be considered in assessing whether goods are of satisfactory quality. As Michael G. Bridge states, ‘The longer the buyer retains the goods, the more scope there is for argument that the goods have lasted long enough; the more the buyer’s own treatment of the goods will bulk large; and the more difficult the buyer will find it to trace the breakdown of the goods to their condition at the date of delivery’ . By the time a durability problem emerges the buyer may, in any case, have lost the right to reject through lapse of a reasonable time however, since the recent reforms under the Sale of Goods Act (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002) even when the traditional short term right to reject has been lost (apart from a damages claim), consumer buyers have the right to repair or replacement and then to price reduction or rescission.