英美侵权法作业

Discussing the function of the CPA 1987

Author: Dan Liu 0910010081

[Abstract] Today, consumers have become a significant social development and social issues. This article from the analysis of the causes of the problem of consumers, consumer protection and the development of sports

legislation to promote the development of the consumer campaign to resolve the basic consumer rights protection..

The meaning of the CPA 1987 is that provisions of the consumer in the embodiment of the rights of protection, obligations on operators. Ensuring the interests of consumer, protection of the legitimate of consumers is the basic consumer rights protection

[Keywords] the CPA1987 rights and obligation Legislative developments function

First, what’s the consumer protection act and its contents

(1)what is the consumer protection act

The consumer protection act 1987(CPA 1987), which was enacted to implement the EC Product Liability Directive (85/374/EC), has introduced a measure of strict liability for defective products into English law. Consumer protection laws is to

protect consumers paid for goods or services is exempt from personal and property damages or violations of legal norms.

(2)The contents of CPA

The CPA 1987 contains five part, Part I Product Liability, Part II Consumer Safety. Part III Misleading Price Indications, Part IV Enforcement of Parts II and III, Part V Miscellaneous and Supplemental.

Obvioursely, I will analysis the CPA form serveral aspects. 1. the difference bewteen fault and strict liability. As we all known, most torts,including negligence, are based on fault liability.The claimant has to prove not only that the defendant’s behaviour broke the law and caused damage, but also that the defendant either intended to cause harm to the claimant, or was blameworty in overworking the risk to the claimant. This will reduces the possiblity of compensation to claimant. However, strict liability is exceptional in tort.

Where it exists the claimant is relieved of the need to prove any intent or carelessness on the part of the defendant; the claimant merely has to prove the causal link between the defendant’s tortious behaviour and the damage suffered. This may increase the claimant’s chances of a successful claim. Such as 1the ‘Horace’case , in this case, the judge held as long as the claimant can prove that the electric blanket was defective and actually caused the fire, he wil be successful and will not have to prove failure to take reasonable care as the CPA 1987 impose strict liability.

2. s1 the meaning of ‘product’ , including packaging and instructions and potentially covers a huge variety of manufactured and other googs and utilities. [1] Manufactured products. This includes components of another product.[2] ‘Substance won or abstracted’. This include things like electricity and water.[3] Things which owe their ‘essential characteristics’ to an ‘industrial or other process’.This includes agricultural products. Such as the2‘A and others v National Blood Authority’{2001} case, the judge held blood and blood products supplied by the defendant were ‘product’ within the meaning of s1 and had been subject to an industrial process. Whether the Act covers intellectual property is not clear., which is an imperfect aspect. The consumer protection law in china also has not clearly defination about the range of products.

3.Potentia defendants: s2, including the producer, own brand seller, the importer, the spplier.

4.The potential claimant:s4, any person hurt or suffering damger to his or her private property may claim under the Act.

5.Defective means dangerous:s3, there is no liability unless it actually cause damage to the comsumer or the consumer’s other property. The following factors are relevent in deciding whrther this standard has been met:[1] the packing and any warning or instructions [2] the normal uses of the product [3] the time when the product was issued. I will cite the3case ‘Piper v JRI(Manfacturing) Ltd(2006)’to interpret the defination of those, in the case, the person who suffe rthe damage is the potential claimant. the defendant in the case is the producer. but in the case, judge held that as the claimant can 1The book of Law for business students p272

2The book of Law for business students FIFTH EDITION p268

3The book of Law for business student FIFTH EDITION p269