37. Business Law
Assignment One – Part One
Answer one question only
All questions carry equal marks
Question One
‘The Thalidomide tragedy created a wave of public concern leading to the Law Commission recommending the introduction of a strict liability regime in relation to product liability, whereby manufacturers would be liable merely because a product was defective: there would be no need to establish fault as is required under the common law.’ (Card & James Business Law; l. Roach; 2012)
Evaluate the tort of negligence as a means of providing redress for an injured consumer. To what extent does the Consumer Protection Act 1987 Part I improve the rights of consumers in respect of faulty goods?
(50 Marks)
Question Two
‘This system (freedom of contract) works in a perfect market but the reality is that there is relatively little choice for consumers….and high street stores are often owned by the same multinational corporation. There is also an unequal power relationship between the parties. It was in response to these concerns that the state began to restrict the ability of certain terms to be excluded from contracts.’ (Business Law; J. Marson 2013)
Assess how statutory developments regulating the use of exclusion clauses have modified their use.
(50 Marks)
Assignment 1 – Part Two
Answer the case study below
All parts of the question carry equal marks
Question One
David had decided to treat himself to a computer tablet. When browsing the internet he came across the web site of a company called Righttablet Ltd which sold a range of new and reconditioned computer tablets. The opening page of the site stated: –
‘We offer a wide selection of new and reconditioned computer tablets. Our reconditioned tablets have all been professionally serviced and are ready to use – none more than 2 years old. Massive memory and compatible with all modern software and accessories. Prices begin at £150.’
On the basis of this, David viewed the company’s stock and bought via credit card a reconditioned tablet which was pictured with the following description: –
‘2013 reconditioned high spec tablet with 32 Gb of memory – compatible with all Android aps. £350.’
Four days later the tablet arrived in a presentation gift box
4 weeks later David was uploading data from his online storage account. However the tablet was unable to cope with this amount of data and constantly crashed. The tablet was also only compatible with a small number of Android aps.
David later took the tablet to a local computer repair shop where the technician discovered that the computer dated from at least 2011 and had a faulty hard-drive. The repair cost Terry £100.
Later that day David rang the phone number on Righttablets website and demanded either a full refund or a replacement. The salesman flatly refused stating that he had kept the tablet for too long.
Some months ago David decided to renovate his kitchen area – he needed a new back door fitted and a new kitten to be installed. He contacted 3 companies to provide estimates for the job. The cheapest was for £8,000 submitted by Fititright Ltd, who were then asked to do the work. David signed a contract with the company, but it did not mention the cost of the work, nor how long it would take to complete.
The workmen from Fititright started the work in June, but it proceeded very slowly and was finally completed in November. Whilst David was happy about the quality of the kitchen itself, he was very unhappy about its installation – the cupboards fitted badly, work surfaces were uneven and the new back door leaked rainwater. He has also received a bill from Fititright Ltd for £12,000.