Law E-commerce UK Consumer Rights Act 2015

Question: Discuss about the Law E-commerce UK for Consumer Rights Act 2015? Answer: Introduction The Consumer Rights Act brought into practice from the recent year 2015 which is meant for simplification, modernization and strengthening of the law in UK. Thus, provide more effective coverage of the rights of consumers during the process of buying. This new act has replaced the old sale of goods act and introduced a number of clarifications in the process. This paper deals with the evaluation of the case of Nadim basing on his experience from an e-commerce transaction, to identify the rights using the implied terms provided in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Issue or Problem Area This is apparent from the case study that Nadim, was willing to take the pictures of the start at night and therefore, the consumer needed tow lenses for his digital Canon camera 5D mk ii. He was willing to buy two second hand lenses from the given links provided by the camera website. The description it was found that the lenses were of 1970s and the first lens is a Pentax Super Takumar SMC 50mm F1.4, whilst the second lens is a Canon 58mm F1.2 FD. Further the consumer also required the adapters for the fixing the old lenses in his camera and the seller assured that he would get cheap adapters for both lenses. Therefore, Nadim went ahead and purchased both the lenses. However, the problem arises when it was found by the consumer that the products or goods were not of satisfactory quality. The lenses were radioactive and slightly yellow which would affect the quality of the picture as the same would cause loss of light. Further, the adapters that the person required were also not fitting for the purpose. The second lens was old fitting type and the same cannot be used by the consumer and the adapter of the second lens was just not appropriate to take pictures at night. Moreover, the qualities of the adapters were poor enough to degrade the quality of the picture. Therefore, this is apparent that the main purpose of buying the lenses was to take pictures at night and the adapters were required for fixing the lenses in his camera. However, the goods were not of the satisfactory quality and were not serving the purpose of the consumers. Moreover, it was also discovered by the consumer after the purchase that the lenses were slightly radioactive and this was another matter of concern of the consumer. Nevertheless, on demanding for the refund the seller refused it on the grounds that, the level of radiation from the lenses would not be harmful and the adapters that he provided to the consumers were the best fitted adapters that he could arrange for the old lenses. The Relevant Law for the Issue Therefore, from the above mentioned problem of Nadim, that resulted from the purchase of goods through e-commerce there are few terms which are implied from the Consumer Rights Act 2015. There are some of the statutory rights of goods contract which are the goods to be of satisfactory quality and goods to be fit for the particular purpose, implied terms applicable for the considered case[1]. Further this is implied contract in supply of goods that the quality of the goods would be satisfactory, as per the Consumer Rights Act under the term of goods to be of satisfactory quality[2]. The goods are termed to be satisfactory on meeting the standard of quality from the perspective of a reasonable person. The quality of goods considers, the fitness of the purpose, look, goods should be devoid of minor defect and safety of the products along with durability is must[3]. In case of anything unsatisfactory about the goods the same should be brought into the notice of the buyer prior to the con tract is made. The three primary factors embodied under product quality requirements marked by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 are; the satisfactory quality, fit for the purpose and as described. The rules mentioned in the new Act are applicable for all types of products and irrespective of the mode of sale whether e-commerce or from physical shop. Further, in case of any disputes and violation of the consumer right there are certain remedies which are introduced in the Consumer Rights Act [4]. The bases set for refunding along with the period as the remedy for the breach of any contract in the supply of goods. Application of the Law For the considered case of Nadim the specified law of goods to be of satisfactory quality under section 9(2), is applicable. As, the claimant Nadim was not able to use the second Canon lens and further the adapters were too poor for providing quality picture sold by the seller, therefore, the good were not at all satisfactory. This is true that Nadim bought second hand lenses as he demand for used lenses but, this does not permit the seller to Nadim with poor quality lenses which are slightly yellow and radioactive. Questioning right to safety of the consumer also the second lens is not at all suitable for taking pictures at night[5]. However, it was mentioned by the claimant that he was looking for fast lenses for taking picture of the starts at night. The above case can also be related with the case law, Stevenson v Rogers (1999), where the claimant bought a boat from the fisherman for the consideration of $ 14[6]. However, the claimant was not satisfied with the boat due to its poor quality and was not serving the purpose for which the boat was purchased[7]. Therefore, the claimant filed a case against the fisherman on the ground of breach of the amount paid for the poor quality boat, under the sale of goods sold act[8]. The defendant tried to defend himself but, the fisherman was held liable by the court that the sale was considered to be a business transaction[9]. Therefore, it was the duty of the seller to make sure of the quality of the boat before selling. Similarly, in case of Nadim also the lenses and the adapter sold by the seller were of poor quality and not meeting the need of the buyer. Moreover, the law term fitness for purpose under section 10 (1) is also applicable in case of Nadim as, it was mentioned by the claimant to the seller that he wanted fast lenses for taking the shots of the stars through a mail. However, the second lens was not only suitable for taking photos at night but also not fitting in the camera, and the both the lenses were yellowish would reduce the light of the picture. Despite, the purpose of buyer was clear to the seller the person sold such poor quality lenses and one of them was not serving the purpose at all[10]. This case can be related to the recent case took place in UK, BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) 2011, where the seller BSS Group Plc sold adaptor and valve to Makers (UK) Ltd for assisting in a plumbing project of renovation[11]. The problem occurred when it was found that the items bought were not suitable for the purpose, rather the valve blew casing flood on the house ground. While, placing the order the purpose was mentioned and for the specific purpose the seller was supposed to provide a particular type of valve and adaptor but, the seller failed to do so. Thus, BSS was found guilty under section 14 (3) of sale of goods act in the eye of law. Another case, Bernstein v Pamson Motors 1986, the merchantable quality of the goods was the main consideration of the specified case under sale of goods act. This case can be associated with the revised consideration in Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods to be of satisfactory quality under section 9 (1) and (3) to a certain extent. In the case the claimant purchased a car from the car manufacturer however, after a short period of use the car broke down while driving and the defendant accepted the fault and repaired the car as new one without any charges as the products sold by the seller was faulty[12]. Therefore, in case of Nadim also the adapters were not of poor quality, the lenses were radioactive might prove to be harmful for the claimant and the second lens was applicable for taking pictures at night. Conclusion From evaluation of Nadims case enclosure to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this is clear that the claimant has the right to file case against the seller under section 9 (1) and (3) and also section 10 (1). Further, from the analysis of certain other cases under sale of goods act this is clear that Nadim have the right to ask for the refund from the defendant as, the lenses and adapters were not satisfactory; not serving the purpose properly further, and safety factor is also questioned as the lenses were found to be radioactive. Nadim can claim for refund under, 30 day right to reject specified by Consumer Right Act 2015. References: [1] Gov.uk,. 2015,Consumer Rights Act 2015 - GOV.UK. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consumer-rights-act-2015/consumer-rights-act-2015 [2] Legislation.gov.uk,. 2016,Consumer Rights Act 2015. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/enacted [3] Which.co.uk,. 2016,Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Which?. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act [4] BBC News,. 2016,Your new consumer rights explained - BBC News. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34410782 [5] Burrows, A. 2013,English Private Law. Oxford University Press. [6] Webstroke.co.uk,. 2016,Stevenson v Rogers [1999] | Case Summary | Webstroke Law. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/stevenson-v-rogers-1999 [7] E-lawresources.co.uk,. 2016,Stevenson v Rogers. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Stevenson-v-Rogers.php [8] Whincup, M. 2006,Contract Law and Practice: The English System with Scottish, Commonwealth, and Continental Comparisons. Kluwer Law International. [9] Del Valle, S. 2003,Language rights and the law in the United States. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. [10] DiMatteo, L., Zhou, Q., Saintier, S., Rowley, K. 2013,Commercial Contract Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11] Lexisweb.co.uk,. 2016,Makers (UK) Ltd (trading as Allied Services) v BSS Group Plc | LexisWeb. Retrieved 20 February 2016, from https://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2011/july/makers-uk-ltd-trading-as-allied-services-v-bss-group-plc [12] Ho, H. 1997, Some Reflections on Property and Title in the Sale of Goods Act.Cam. Law. J.,vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 571.