Consumer Protection Act 1987

Last updated

Consumer Protection Act 1987
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Long title An Act to make provision with respect to the liability of persons for damage caused by defective products; to consolidate with amendments the Consumer Safety Act 1978 and the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986; to make provision with respect to the giving of price indications; to amend Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and sections 31 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875; to repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 and the Fabrics (Misdescription) Act 1913; and for connected purposes.
Citation 1987 c. 43
Introduced by Paul Channon Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1]
Territorial extent England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland
Dates
Royal assent 15 May 1987
Commencement 1 October 1987 [2]
Repealed
Other legislation
Amended by General Product Safety Regulations 2005
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Repealed by
Relates to
Status: Current legislation
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (c 43) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made important changes to the consumer law of the United Kingdom. Part 1 implemented European Community (EC) Directive 85/374/EEC, the product liability directive, by introducing a regime of strict liability for damage arising from defective products. Part 2 created government powers to regulate the safety of consumer products through Statutory Instruments. Part 3 defined a criminal offence of giving a misleading price indication.

Contents

The Act was notable in that it was the first occasion that the UK government implemented an EC directive through an Act of Parliament rather than an order under the European Communities Act 1972. [3]

Product liability

Section 2 imposes civil liability in tort for damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product. Liability falls on:

Liability is strict, and there is no need to demonstrate fault or negligence on behalf of the producer. Liability cannot be "written out" by an exclusion clause (s.7)

Damage includes (s.5):

but damage to the product itself is excluded, as are other forms of pure economic loss. [4]

Product

A "product" is any goods or electricity and includes products aggregated into other products, whether as component parts, raw materials or otherwise (s.1(2)(c)) though a supplier of the aggregate product is not liable simply on the basis of that fact (s.1(3)). Buildings and land are not included but construction materials such as bricks and girders are. Information and software are not included though printed instructions and embedded software are relevant to the overall safety of a product. [5]

The original Act did not apply to unprocessed game or agricultural produce (s.2(4)) but this exception was repealed on 4 December 2000 to comply with EU Directive 1999/34/EC which was enacted because of fears over BSE. [6] [7] [8]

Defect

Section 3 defines a "defect" as being present when "the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect". Safety is further defined as to apply to products that are component parts or raw materials in other products, and to risks to property as well as risks of death and personal injury (s.3(1)).

The standard of safety that "persons generally are entitled to expect" is to be assessed in relation to all the circumstances, including (s.3(2)):

but the fact that older products were less safe than newer ones does not, of itself, render the older products defective.

Limitation

Schedule 1 amends the Limitation Act 1980. Claims under the Act are barred three years after the date when damage occurred or when it came to the knowledge of the claimant. However, no claim can be brought more than 10 years after the date the product was put into circulation. [9]

Development risks defence

Section 4(1)(e) states that, in civil proceedings, it is a defence to show that:

... the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control

This defence was allowed to member states as an option under the Directive. [10] As of 2004, all EU member states other than Finland and Luxembourg had taken advantage of it to some extent. [11] However, the concept had been criticised and rejected by the Law Commission in 1977, particularly influenced by the thalidomide tragedy, [12] and by the Pearson Commission in 1978. [13] [14]

The UK implementation differs from the version of the defence in Art.7(e) of the Directive:

... the state of scientific and technical knowledge when [the producer] put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered.

The directive seems to suggest that discovery of the defect must be impossible while the UK implementation seems to broaden the defence to situations where, while it would have been possible to discover the defect, it would have been unreasonable to expect the producer to do so. This difference led the Commission of the European Union to bring legal action against the UK in 1989. [15] As there was at that time no UK case law on the defence, the European Court of Justice found that there was no evidence that the UK was interpreting the defence more broadly than the wording of the directive. This is likely to ensure that the UK legislation is interpreted to be consistent with the directive in the future, as was the case in A & Others v. National Blood Authority [16] where the judge referred to the directive rather than the UK legislation. [17]

Other defences

Impact of the Act

The UK was one of only a few EU member states that implemented Directive 85/374 within the three-year deadline. [3] There is a view that the Act "probably represents the truest implementation" of the directive among member states. The UK did not take the option of applying a ceiling on claims for personal injury and in certain respects it goes further than the directive. [18]

The first claim under the Act was not brought to court until 2000, 12 years after the Act came into force and, as of 2004, there have been very few court cases. This pattern is common in other EU member states and research indicates that most claims are settled out of court. Exact information on the impact of the Act is difficult to obtain as there is no reporting requirement similar to that under the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act. [19] [20]

Consumer safety

Section 10 originally imposed a general safety requirement on consumer products but this was repealed when its effect was superseded by the broader requirements of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. [21]

Section 11 gives the Secretary of State, as of 2021 the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the power to make, after consultation, regulations by way of Statutory Instrument to ensure that:

Regulations under this section cannot be made to apply to (s.11(7)):

Enforcement authorities

Every weights and measures authority in England, Wales and Scotland and every Northern Ireland district council has a duty to enforce, as an enforcement authority, the safety provisions in addition to the law on misleading price indications although these duties can be delegated by the Secretary of State (s.27). "Enforcement authorities" have the power to make test purchases (s.28) and have powers of entry and search (ss.29-30). Further, a customs officer can detain goods (s.31). There are criminal offences of obstructing an officer of an enforcement authority or giving false information, punishable with a fine (s.32) and recovery of the costs of enforcement (s.35).

Appeal against detention of goods is to the magistrates' court, or in Scotland the sheriff (s.33) and compensation can be ordered (s.34). There is a further right of appeal to the Crown Court in England and Wales, or to a county court in Northern Ireland (s.33(4)).

Breach of regulations

Breach of regulations is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by up to 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale (s.12).

Prohibition notices, notices to warn and suspension notices

The Secretary of State may serve on any person (s.13):

An enforcement authority can serve a suspension notice prohibiting supply of a product for up to 6 months (s.14). The supplier can appeal a suspension notice to the Magistrates' Court, or in Scotland, the Sheriff (s.15).

Breach of any such notice is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by up to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale (ss.13(4), 14(6)).

Seizure and forfeiture

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, an enforcement authority may apply to a Magistrates' Court for a forfeiture order to seize unsafe products where (s.16):

In Scotland a sheriff may make an order for forfeiture where there has been a contravention of safety regulations (s.17):

Appeal against forfeiture is to the Crown Court in England and Wales, the County Court in Northern Ireland (s.16(5)), or the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland (s.17(8)).

Provision of information

The Secretary of State may require information of any person in order to (s.18):

Failure to provide information is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale. Provision of false information is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to the statutory maximum and on indictment in the Crown Court of an unlimited fine (s.18(4)).

Misleading price indications

The Act created a crime of giving a misleading price indication in Part III, where a person, in the course of business gives, by any means whatever, to a consumer an indication that is misleading as to the price at which any of the following is available (s.20) [note that Part III of the Act was repealed by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008]:

An offender can be sentenced, on summary conviction to a fine of up to the statutory maximum for Magistrates' Courts or, on conviction on indictment in the Crown Court to an unlimited fine (s.20(4)).

Misleading

A price indication is "misleading" if it conveys, or if consumers might reasonably be expected to infer, that (s.21):

See also

Notes

  1. Young, R. (21 November 1986). "Welcome for consumer Bill despite reservations; Consumer protection". The Times .
  2. Statutory Instrument 1987 No. 1680 Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1987
  3. 1 2 van Gerven et al. (2000) p.666
  4. Giliker & Beckwith (2004) 9-023
  5. Giliker & Beckwith (2004) 9-020
  6. Shears et al. (2001)
  7. Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2771 Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000
  8. Scottish Parliament. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2001 as made, from legislation.gov.uk .
  9. Limitation Act 1980, s.11A
  10. Art.15(1)(b)
  11. Giliker & Beckwith (2004) 9-029
  12. Liability for Defective Products (1977) No.82, Cmnd.6831, para.105
  13. Report on the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (1978) Cmnd.7054
  14. Hasson, R. A. (1979). "The Pearson Report: Something for Everyone?". British Journal of Law and Society. British Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 6, No. 1. 6 (1): 119–126. doi:10.2307/1409710. JSTOR   1409710. S2CID   53060341.
  15. Commission v. UK [1997] All ER (EC) 481
  16. [2001] 3 All ER 289
  17. Giliker & Beckwith (2004) 9-030
  18. van Gerven et al. (2000) pp668-669
  19. Giliker & Beckwith (2004) 9-036 - 9-038
  20. Report from the Commission on the Application of Directive 85/374 on Liability for Defective Products Com (2000) 893, para.2.2
  21. Office of Public Sector Information (2005) General Product Safety Regulations 2005 - Explanatory note

Related Research Articles

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arises from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

Lemon laws are laws that provide a remedy for purchasers of cars and other consumer goods in order to compensate for products that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality and performance. Although many types of products can be defective, the term "lemon" is mostly used to describe defective motor vehicles, such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles.

The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) is a United States federal law enacted on October 28, 1974 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act and as the third title of the same bill signed into law by President Gerald Ford that also enacted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Its purpose is to protect consumers from unfair billing practices and to provide a mechanism for addressing billing errors in "open end" credit accounts, such as credit card or charge card accounts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2011 defines the fundamental structure and authority for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare within the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notices that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 is a United Kingdom Statutory Instrument which states general requirements imposed on employers to protect employees and other persons from the hazards of substances used at work by risk assessment, control of exposure, health surveillance and incident planning. There are also duties on employees to take care of their own exposure to hazardous substances and prohibitions on the import of certain substances into the European Economic Area. The regulations reenacted, with amendments, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Work Regulations 1999 and implement several European Union directives.

<i>Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.</i>

In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid.

The Consumer Protection Regulations 2000, Statutory Instrument 2000/2334, implements European Directive 97/7/EC as UK law. They apply to contracts "concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organised distance sales or services provision scheme run by the supplier who, for the purposes of the contract, makes use of one or more means of distance communication" up to and including the moment the contract is agreed. The legislation provides rights to the consumer and obligations which the seller must fulfill.

Irish law on product liability was for most of its history based solely on negligence. With the Liability for Defective Products Act, 1991 it has now also the benefit of a statutory, strict liability regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Product Liability Directive 1985</span> European Union Directive (EU) 1985/374

The Product Liability Directive85/374/EEC is a directive of the Council of the European Communities which created a regime of strict liability for defective products applicable in all member states of the European Union, the other EEA members and the United Kingdom.

The Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 is an Act of the Oireachtas that augmented Irish law on product liability formerly based solely on negligence. It introduced a strict liability regime for defective products, implementing Council of the European Union Directive 85/374/EEC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General Product Safety Regulations 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 is a 2005 Statutory Instrument of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that demands that "No producer shall [supply or] place a [consumer] product on the market unless the product is a safe product" and provides broad enforcement powers. The regulations implemented European Union directive 2001/95/EC and revoked the General Product Safety Regulations 1994. The regulations also repealed section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which had previously imposed a more limited general safety requirement.

Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, and the public, against unfair practices in the marketplace. Consumer protection measures are often established by law. Such laws are intended to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or specified unfair practices to gain an advantage over competitors or to mislead consumers. They may also provide additional protection for the general public which may be impacted by a product even when they are not the direct purchaser or consumer of that product. For example, government regulations may require businesses to disclose detailed information about their products—particularly in areas where public health or safety is an issue, such as with food or automobiles.

Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Office of Fair Trading. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Rights Act 2015</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom that consolidates existing consumer protection law legislation and also gives consumers a number of new rights and remedies. Provisions for secondary ticketing and lettings came into force on 27 May 2015, and provisions for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) came into force on 9 July 2015 as per the EU Directive on consumer ADR. Most other provisions came into force on 1 October 2015.

European consumer law concerns consumer protection within Europe, particularly through European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Increases in the use of autonomous car technologies are causing incremental shifts in the responsibility of driving, with the primary motivation of reducing the frequency of traffic collisions. Liability for incidents involving self-driving cars is a developing area of law and policy that will determine who is liable when a car causes physical damage to persons or property. As autonomous cars shift the responsibility of driving from humans to autonomous car technology, there is a need for existing liability laws to evolve to reasonably identify the appropriate remedies for damage and injury. As higher levels of autonomy are commercially introduced, the insurance industry stands to see higher proportions of commercial and product liability lines, while personal automobile insurance shrinks.

<i>A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another</i> Consumer law case involving claimants infected with hepatitis C

A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions but also blood products or transplanted organs, all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) even in the absence of the ability to test to ascertain which blood transfusions were defective. The claimants were 114 individuals, six of whom were considered lead plaintiffs and given close consideration by the judge, Mr Justice Burton. Several of the claimants were minors who had become infected with Hepatitis C in the course of their treatment for leukaemia. The defendants were the National Blood Authority (NBA) and in respect of Wales, the Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff. The court found that the UK government should have implemented measures to screen donated blood for HCV by March 1990, rather than September 1991, and that surrogate testing should have been introduced within the United Kingdom no later than 1 March 1988.

References