SCENARIO 2 Brian is given, by his brother Paul, a new Quality at Home\' brand sl
ID: 349122 • Letter: S
Question
SCENARIO 2 Brian is given, by his brother Paul, a new Quality at Home' brand slow cooker from Best Goods Ltd Brian uses it for the first time witho ut any problems. The second time he uses the slow cooker, he puts iton as per the manufacturer's instructions and leaves his home to visit a friend. When he returns, the slow cooker is on fire which destroys the slow cooker, some kitc hen utensils and the kitthen units. The fire aso bady damages the computer he uses for his business and his flat screen teevision (worth over E600) both of which had been on the kit hen units. The kitchen will need redecorating due to the smoke damage from the fire. Advise Brian whether e canbringanacionandwhathecan daim for. (1)incontact and/ar (2) inthe TortofNegligerce anc/or B) undertheCorsumer Protection Act 1987. Can Brian bring a claim based on contract? Explain liability in contract compared with liability in tort . What must Brian prove if he brings a claim based on the tort of Negigence? . What must Brian prove to be successful in a claim based on the Consumer Protection Act 19877 . Whatare the possible remedies available to Brian? Would the manufacturer have any defences?Explanation / Answer
Brian can not bring the claim based on contract, instead he can claim in accordance with strict liability in tort. In the liability in tort, the conditions of liability are fixed by the law, whereas in the liability of contract, the terms are decided mutually by the parties signing the contract. Tort is an act in which a party faces injury or damage due to an act of negligence on the part of other party.
Brian must prove that the cooker was defective in functioning which led to the fire. He will also have to prove that the instruction of not leaving the cooker unattended while in operation was never notified by the manufacturer.
CPA of 1987 imposes strict liability for defective product. To claim under this act, the plaintiff must prove the defect in the product.
Brian can claim that the damage was caused by defective product, or manufactuer's failure to warn the user about the dangers of leaving the unit operating alone.
Manufacturer has defence if the operating procedure of the product had warnings clearly in writing for the consumer about the operation of the product under supervision only, and non availability of auto stop or safety functions with the product that could have resulted the damage to the machine or nearby items.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.