Consumer Protection Act 1987

The Consumer Protection Act 1987
This protects the public by: * -prohibiting the manufacture and supply of unsafe goods * -making the manufacturer or seller of a defective product responsible for damage it causes * -allowing local councils to seize unsafe goods and suspend the sale of suspected unsafe goods
-prohibiting misleading price indications

The first section defines what a product is which is defined as “any goods and electricity”. A good is further defined as substances, growing crops and things comprised inland by virtue of being attached to it and any ship, aircraft or vehicle.

The second section defines who can be sued over negligence or a defective.
It can be either someone who has put their name on a product through a trademark or brand.
Another person that can potentially be sued is a person who brings in a good which does not meet regulations of the EU.

Section three of the act defines what a defect is. A defect is when the product does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect. This is very contestable because expectation is subjective.

In Bogle Vs Mcdonalds restaurants, Bogle said his coffee was defective because his coffee was too hot but he was unsuccessful because coffee is expected to be hot and he could not prove the temperature.

Richardson Vs LRC products LTD. This is demonstrated in Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000] 59 BMLR 185 where a condom was held not to be defective even though the woman became pregnant, because there is always this risk of this happening. Similarly, in XYZ v Schering Health Care Ltd [2002] EWHC 1420 it was held that a contraceptive pill was not defective for causing cardiovascular problems because this was a known possible side effect.

Another case involving section 3 of the Act is Abouzaid v Mother Care (UK) Ltd (21 December 2000, CA). In this case, whilst assembling a pram, an elastic strap snapped out of the claimant’s hand and he was struck in the eye by the buckle. The Court of Appeal held that the injury was caused by a defect in the product because they could have done more to prevent such injuries.

Section 4 lists the defences available to producers who are faced with a claim under the 1987 Act. These include defect attributable to compliance with legal requirements – s 4(1)(a); defendant was not the supplier – s 4(1)(c) and the defect was not in existence at the relevant time – s 4(1)(d). A full list of the defences under Section 4 can be found here.

Section 5 of the Act explains what it means by ‘damage’. It provides in subsection (1) that damage means ‘death or personal injury or any loss of or damage to any property (including land).’ The value of the property damaged must exceed £275 – s 5(4). There must also be causation – the defective product must have caused the damage. If the damage is too remote, the producer may not be liable for the damage.