From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

Part 1 of this enactment provides a scheme of no-fault liability ('Strict liability ') for the benefit of consumers against the manufacturers of defective products. It supplements, rather than replaces, the common law principles of Negligence. Because the Act derives from an EU Directive, it applies to any manufacturer supplying goods within the EU. However, different states have derogated from certain provisions, as allowed by the Directive. For example, not all states recognized the state of the art defence.

To succeed under the Act, the claimant must show that

1. there was a defect in the product
2. there was injury or damage to property
3. the injury or damage was caused by the defect

Note that the fault of the defendant, if any, is not at issue. The Consumer Protection Act is very broadly framed, and many of the terms it uses have wide scope. There is a reasonable amount ofcase law that provides guidance on how the Act should be interpreted.

Who may be liable?

Under s.2, liability extends to manufacturers, importers, and distributers who re-brand products and imply they are the manufacturers. It also extends to any supplier who does not respond to a request to identify the manufacturer. Defective land and buildings are expressly excluded (s.46), although these may fall within the remit of other legislation, such as the occupiers liability act (1957). Liability only applies to businesses, not individuals. Liability may fall both on the producer of a complete product, and the producer of a component within that product.

What is a product?

In A v national blood authority (2001) its was held that blood products could be 'products' for the purposes of the act. This suggests that it is not restricted to 'consumer products' in the common-sense meaning of the term. It appears that products must be tangible, so information and services a probably not products, but electricity is.

What is a defect?

A product is defective if it's 'safety...is not such as persons are generally entitled to expect.' It is clear than the product is not expected to be perfect (RichardsonVLRCProducts2000). Also, the fact that the product is easily capable of causing harm does not render it defective (BVMcDonalds2002). The Act abjures the court to have regard to the way the product is marked, any warnings associated with it, and the use to which it might reasonably be put.

The Act does not cover the loss of the defective product itself. Presumably if your car catches fire while standing on the driveway, provided no-one is hurt and no other property is damaged, the Act does not apply. This does not mean that an ordinary claim for negligence would not succeed, of course. There is an arbitrary limit of £275 below which damage to property is not recoverable.

Defences

Under s.7, liability under the Act cannot be excluded by contract, so the presence of an exclusion clause will not help the defendant. Valid defences are:

1. the defedant did not, in fact, supply the product;
2. the defect resulted from compliance with the law
3. the defect was not in the product at the time of supply
4. the product was not supplied in the course of business
5. the development risks defence
6. the state of the art defence

See also: Product liability, Negligence.

-- Main.KevinBoone - 15 Jan 2004