Consumer Protection Act 1987
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a UK law that provides protection to consumers in the event of product defects. It holds manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers responsible for ensuring that their products are safe for consumers to use. The act also allows consumers to seek compensation for damages caused by defective products.
8 Key excerpts on "Consumer Protection Act 1987"
eBook - ePubReliability, Maintainability and Risk
Practical Methods for Engineers including Reliability Centred Maintenance and Safety-Related Systems
- David J. Smith(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Butterworth-Heinemann(Publisher)
...The Consumer Protection Act was the UK's response to EU Directive 85/374 on product liability and makes manufacturers liable whether or not they were negligent, and is both civil and criminal in content. The Act has also been supplemented by the Product Safety Regulations 1994. 20.2.2. Defects A defect, for the purposes of product liability, includes: Manufacturing Presence of impurities or foreign bodies Fault or failure due to manufacturing or installation Design Product not fit for the purpose stated Inherent safety hazard in the design Documentation Lack of necessary warnings Inadequate or incorrect operating and maintenance instructions resulting in a hazard 20.3. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 20.3.1. Background In 1985, after nine years of discussion, the European Community adopted a directive on product liability and member states were required to put this into effect before the end of July 1988. The Consumer Protection Bill resulted in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which establishes strict liability as described above. 20.3.2. Provisions of the Act The Act provides that a producer (and this includes manufactuers, those who import from outside the EC and retailers of ‘own brands’) will be liable for damage caused wholly or partly by defective products, which includes goods, components and materials but excludes unprocessed agricultural produce. ‘Defective’ is defined as not providing such safety as people are generally entitled to expect, taking into account the manner of marketing, instructions for use, the likely uses and the time at which the product was supplied. Death, personal injury and damage (other than to the product) exceeding £275 are included. The consumer must show that the defect caused the damage but no longer has the onus of proving negligence. Defences include: • The state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was such that the producer could not be expected to have discovered the defect...
eBook - ePub- Peter Walker, Peter Walker(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...by themselves sufficient to establish a cause of action (see, generally, Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398, HL). Liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is similarly restricted to death, personal injury and loss or damage to property (s 5). The effect of these authorities is that damages for economic loss caused by third parties will only be recovered in very limited circumstances, so clients must be warned of the risks of litigation in such cases. 5.4 Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Some consumers who have received defective goods as a present or who have bought them from a retailer now out of business, obviously have no contractual remedy. They may sometimes be able to turn to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which makes other people responsible for defective products as follows: the producer of the products; importers of the products into the EC; those distributors who mark the product with their own trade marks (but, note that many such businesses are planning to add what are effectively disclaimers that the trade mark does not mean that they have produced the goods); those retailers or producers who do not respond to a request to information about the true identity of the supplier of the products to them. The remedies available to consumers arise out of the supplier’s or importer’s breach of statutory duty. Furthermore, according to s 1, ‘product’ has a wide definition, while ‘defect’ is defined by reference to safety (s 3). It is necessary to prove that a defective product caused death, personal injury or damage to property. Note, however, that it does not apply to small claims under £275 (s 5) where consumers will have to rely on other remedies in contract or in tort. Duties are defined further in the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 SI 1994/2328. Producers must place safe products on the market (r 7) and distributors must use due care to help ensure compliance with that duty (r 9)...
eBook - ePub- Mary Charman(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Willan(Publisher)
...Just as a claim in negligence may be made by a user of a product which causes harm, who is not necessarily the buyer, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 gives protection to this person by legislation. It also creates criminal liability if certain safety procedures are infringed. The producer Strict liability for a defective product is placed on the producer, without having to prove fault. The producer will normally, but not necessarily, be the manufacturer, and in addition the retailer may be liable for ‘own brand’ products. The defect A product will be defective if the safety ‘is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect’. The product may be defective because of a fault in the manufacturing process, a problem of design, or warning and instructions given to the consumer. The Act covers liability for: death personal injury, and damage to property valued at over £275. But it does not cover liability for damage to the product itself – see Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine (1987) regarding a burst tyre causing damage to a car. Defences Certain defences are available under the Act, including the following: the producer is not in business (such as the sale of home-made products for charity) the defect did not exist at the time of manufacture that only the component was supplied, whereas the fault lay in the whole product design the state of scientific and technical knowledge was such that the producer would not be expected to have discovered the defect – a ‘state of the art’ defence...
...It requires a discussion of the main elements of Part 1 of the Act and a comparison of the statutory and common law regimes regarding product liability. The effect of the Act on manufacturers must be analysed, with particular reference to recent cases. Note, however, that the question requires you to discuss critically; it will not be sufficient merely to list the statutory requirements. How to Answer this Question In particular, the following points must be discussed: the position under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 ; persons liable – s 2 ; the definition of defect and guidelines for assessing safety – s 3 ; the burden of proof; the defences, especially the state-of the-art defence – s 4 ; the position at common law; the requirement of causation and foreseeability; the limitations on property damage; whether manufacturers are in a worse position after the introduction of the Act. Answer Structure Up for Debate Product liability is now largely governed by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and thus much of the case law has considered whether the scope of its various sections applies to particular circumstances. It is a relatively niche area of law not as prominent in the law of tort and it has traditionally been difficult for claimants to recover under the statute. For an interesting and student-friendly introduction to many of the important principles in product liability see C Johnston, ‘A personal (and selective) introduction to product liability law’ (2012) 1 Journal of Personal Injury Law 1, and for a critical survey of some of the problems found in the case law see M Mildred, ‘Pitfalls in product liability’ (2007) 2 Journal of Personal Injury Law 141. ANSWER Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 was introduced into English law to implement the EC Directive 85/734/EEC relating to product liability...
eBook - ePub- Graham Stephenson, Graham Stephenson(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...The various problems really came to a head or fever pitch at the time of the Thalidomide litigation, an action which laid open to the public gaze the glaring inadequacies of the common law on product liability, although the many problems were not the exclusive domain of this field of liability. The Act is the attempt, with European sanction, to alleviate some of these problems. STRICT LIABILITY The text of Pt 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 reads as follows: 1 Purpose and construction of Pt 1 (1) This part shall have effect for the purpose of making such provision as is necessary in order to comply with the Product Liability Directive and shall be construed accordingly. (2) In this Part, except in so far as the context otherwise requires: ‘agricultural produce’ means any produce of the soil, of stockfarming or of fisheries; ‘dependant’ and ‘relative’ have the same meaning as they have in, respectively, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Damage (Scotland) Act 1976; ‘producer’ in relation to a product, means: (a) the person who manufactured it; (b) in the case of a substance which has not been manufactured but has been won or abstracted, the person who won or abstracted it; (c) in the case of a product which has not been manufactured, won or abstracted but essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process having been carried out (for example, in relation to agricultural produce), the person who carried out that process; ‘product’ means any goods or electricity and (subject to sub-s (3) below) includes a product which is comprised in another product, whether by virtue of being a component part or raw material or otherwise; ‘the Product Liability Directive’ means the Directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 25 July 1985, (No 85/374/EEC) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member...
eBook - ePub- Keith Owens(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...The total cost of claims faced by Ford was some four billion dollars. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 Virtually concurrent with the developments in the United States, strict liability for defective products was developed in France, Germany and Holland in the 1960s. In England, a Law Commission Report, ‘Liability for Defective Products’ (Report No 82, Cmnd 6831, 1977), recommended a system of strict liability in respect of defective products. The Pearson Commission (1978 Cmnd 7054) also recommended strict liability along very similar lines in favour of persons who suffered death or bodily injury caused by a defective product. The EEC was also active in this area. After producing a draft directive, which was followed by amendments (for example, one amendment excluded primary agricultural products from the scope of the directive), it came up with a final version in 1985 in the form of the EEC Directive on Product Liability (85/374/EEC). The final version was not so robust as the draft in that, in particular, it allows a ‘state of the art’ defence, which was specifically excluded in the draft. The Directive was given effect in the UK by the Consumer Protection Act, which became law early in 1987. It provides in s 1 that it is intended to give effect to the Directive and shall be construed accordingly. This would appear to mean that if the Act is unclear about any matter, the Directive may be referred to. This, in any case, would be the position if the wording of the Act is construed purposively in accordance with such cases as Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co (1989) (see Chapter 1). Who is liable? Section 2(2) provides that the following shall be liable for damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in the product: the producer of the product...
eBook - ePub- Jacqueline Martin, Chris Turner, Virginia Birch, Virginia Birch(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...protection in a non-contractual situation under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where the consumer has suffered personal injury or damages of more than £75. 1.5 P ROTECTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW 1. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 create criminal offences in respect of unsafe goods. 2. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it a criminal offence to apply a false trade description in the course of trade or business. 3. It also makes it an offence to supply or offer to supply goods to which a false trade description has been applied. 4. Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 creates offences in relation to misleading prices. 1.6 A DMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 1. The Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Enterprise Act 2002 set down rules on adverse consumer practices. 2. The Office of Fair Trading and local trading standards departments can issue orders against traders and apply for the enforcement of orders when breaches continue....
eBook - ePub- Wendy Laws(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...It would then be open to the defendant to raise any applicable defences. 5 5 For defences in negligence see Chapter 7. 15.4 Consumer Protection Act 1987 – strict liability The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (‘CPA’) established a statutory regime of product liability. Liability under the CPA is in addition to liability in the tort of negligence, not instead of it (see further Section 15.5, ‘Which claim to bring’). The CPA imposes liability where: damage is caused by a defect in a product. ‘Product’ essentially means goods, including component parts and raw materials. 15.4.1 Who may claim? Any person who suffers damage caused by a defect in a product may claim. 6 6 Subject to the exclusion of certain types of damage – see further below. 15.4.2 Who is the claim against? A claim may be brought against: The producer of the product (usually, the person who manufactured it). A person who held themselves out as the producer by putting their name or mark on the product (usually referred to as an ‘ own brander’). A person who imports the product into the United Kingdom in order to supply it in the course of his business (usually referred to as the ‘importer’). In limited circumstances, a claim may be brought against the supplier of a product. In summary, this applies where the claimant is unable to identify the producer, own brander, or importer, and asks the supplier to identify those persons. The supplier must then either identify the producer, own brander, or importer, or provide details of the person who supplied the product to them. If the supplier fails to supply that information, the supplier becomes a potential defendant. This is often referred to as the ‘forgetful supplier’ (since the supplier can avoid becoming a defendant by ‘remembering’ the above details)...
