Consumer Law Coursework Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Consumer Law Coursework - deterrent example Study ExampleThe number one wood who was an expert could detect the bad condition of the machine but aft(prenominal) the purchase and payment. The sales man also did non wash the car before address unrepentant to his promise. His liability arises for having sold a faulty car fraudulently, for the damages arising out of the accident occurred after delivery and for not having valeted the car before delivery.Second hold goods including cars came on a lower floor the purview of Consumer Protection bet 1987 by dint of amendment by General Protection Act 2004. Hence chip hand cars are subject to the corresponding terms as they apply to new cars. Martha as a consumer foot expect the quality to be satisfactory as per prescribed standards applicable to that good under section 14 of Sales of Goods Act 1979 as substituted by section 1 of Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994.and also section 3 of Sale and Supply of Good to Consumers Regulati ons 2002. Accordingly, the car bought by Martha should be fit for the take aim, safe enough and long-lasting as claimed by the seller at the time of sale. Martha can claim full refund of the esteem paid and she make an immediate complaint. No time should be lost since the seller can not say that the car might have been mishandled by the buyer after the purchase. But the witness of the driver who drove the car for delivery to Martha can always testify the condition at the time of delivery. If Martha returns the car within a maximum allowed period of six months, she need not prove that car was amiss(p) at the time of sale. If the seller is not wiling to take back, the burden is on him to prove that it was not defective at the time of sale. Martha should make sure to initiate legal proceedings immediately in nerve of the sellers refusal, though a claim can be lodged within six years. If the seller agrees for the restore and the repair still does not set right the defects, Martha can claim full refund though Martha can stick to demanding full refund since the seller has sold a rogue car fraudulently. In racing shell of sellers non-cooperation, she can seek advice from local Citizens Advice Bureau for legal action in small claims court and for provided recovery action after the claim is allowed by the court. She can also approach Retail motor Industry Federation, The Vehicle Builders and Repairers Federation or MVRA Ltd as A1 condition for the car may be a standard prescribed by the trade for immaculate condition.Besides, section 14 of Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offense if false statement is made for the condition of the goods sold by the dealer. The local authority of trading standards section should also be approached for lodging her criminal complaint against the seller/dealer of the car. There is provision under section 75 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 for making a complaint against the seller for exchange an unsafe car.1 In Bart lett v Sidney Marcus (1952)2, Lord Denning had stated that in case of second hand cars, the buyer should be aware of the prospect of encountering defects every time after the purchase and hence should not buy without an express warranty as otherwise the buyer can not have any remedy in law. The consumer must apply the usability test by ensuring that car should be fit for the purpose that is to ride along the road. Earlier usability test to establish merchantable quality was being applied for second cars for their road worthiness rather than being wholly perfect for their use. In the