Issues That Must Be Addressed In Consumer Law Case Studies

 

1.    Is plaintiff a consumer?  (Have they bought goods or services which were not destined to be used as a primary source of income?)

 

2.    Is defendant the supplier and/or manufacturer?

 

3.    Have there been any breaches in the supply of goods?  (List all breaches)

 

4.    Have there been any breaches in the supply of services?  (List all breaches, keep in mind ‘services’ means work for which you have paid.  Eg. Plumbing, dry-cleaning etc, not free advice such as that offered by a sales assistant)

 

5.    Were the breaches of CONDITION or WARRANTY?  If condition, cancel contract and claim for consequential damages.  If warranty, remedy is to repair or replace goods, and if appropriate, claim consequential damages.

 

6.    Have there been any breaches of Unfair Practices?  (List breaches).  Include remedies such as in the event of an illegal exclusion clause, the consumer can simply ignore it.

 

 

 

Question 1

 

·        The plaintiff is a consumer because he is purchasing goods which are not to be used as a primary source of income.

 

·        The defendant is a supplier, and also deemed manufacturer because they have applied their own label to the goods.

 

·        Breaches in supply of goods:

 

1.      Unmerchantable quality – Defendant cannot avoid liablility because the defect was not drawn to the consumer’s attention pre-purchase, nor would the defect have been apparent upon inspection

2.      Unfit for purpose – the defendant is unable to avoid liability for the defect.

3.      Failure to provide repair.

 

·        This would normally be deemed a breach of warranty, but due to the refusal to provide repair of the goods this breach would be upgraded to condition.  The plaintiff can therefore cancel the contract and receive a refund.

 

·        Breaches of unfair practices:

1.      The No refunds sign is illegal, the plaintiff can simply ignore it.

 

 

 Question 2

 

·        Determining whether Colin is a consumer is a bit tricky.  He would wish to argue that he is in order to have a quick, cheap resolution.  To support his argument he would say that the tractor was merely an accessory to the business, and that his primary source of income is wheat, not tractors.

 

·        The defendant in this case is the supplier of the goods.

 

·        Breaches in supply of goods:

 

1.    Fitness for purpose – Supplier cannot avoid liability because the consumer relied on reasonable advice.

 

·        This would be deemed a breach of condition, because the tractor is not what the consumer asked for.  The consumer can cancel the contract, and possibly claim consequential damages.

 

·        Breaches of Unfair Practices:

1.    Supplier lied about the performance qualities of the tractor.  This would also allow for the cancellation of the contract, (but we’ve already done that based on the above breach of condition, so no point doing it again.)

 

 

Question 4

 

·        Gus is a consumer because he has purchased goods which were not to be used as a primary source of income.

 

·        *Afterthought*

For the purpose of this question we are sticking the supplier’s label to the goods, thereby making them the manufacturer as well as the supplier.

 

·        Breaches in supply of goods

1.    Unmerchantable quality – Defendant unable to avoid liability for latent defect.

2.    Unfit for purpose (this is a ‘maybe’ depending on whether Gus required the jeans to be blue for a specific purpose such as work.)

 

·        These breaches would be of warranty, and the consumer has the right to have the goods replaced or repaired.  But, if this cannot be satisfactorily done, he may have a reasonable argument that the breach could be upgraded to condition, thus allowing him to cancel the contract.

 

·        Breaches of Unfair Practices.

1.    The “no refunds” sign is an attempt to exclude the consumer’s statutory rights, and this is illegal.  Gus can ignore the sign

 

Question 5.

 

·        Beryl would suggest that the microwave is an accessory to the business, and not her primary source of income.  This would allow her to be deemed a consumer in relation to this case.

 

·        Defendants are:

 

Zap - supplier	Micro Models - manufacturer
Breaches in supply of goods:   Zap have not done anything wrong here.  All breaches are due to a defect resulting from the manufacture of the goods.	Breaches in supply of goods: 1.    Unmerchantable quality – defendant cannot avoid liability because the defect was not brought to Beryl’s attention before she purchased it, nor would it have been apparent upon her inspection of the goods. 2.    Unfit for purpose – defendant unable to avoid liability because Beryl relied on ‘reasonable’ advice when making the purchase.

·        The breaches are of warranty.  Beryl can have the goods repaired or replaced, and may be successful in claiming for consequential damages resulting from lost business.

 

 

 

 

Question 6

 

Trick question.  In no way could it be argued that this would be deemed a consumer contract.

 

 

Question 7

 

·        Bronwyn would be deemed a consumer because she has purchased goods which were not to be used as a primary source of income.

 

·        The plant nursery would be deemed the supplier.

 

·        Breaches in supply of goods:

1.    Unfit for purpose – Defendant can’t avoid liability because Bronwyn relied on their ‘reasonable’ advice.

 

·        This would be deemed a breach of condition because Bronwyn didn’t get what she asked for.  She can cancel the contract and sue for consequential damages.

 

·        Breaches of Unfair Practices

1.    Lied about the characteristics of the tree.