Consumer Rights Act 2015: Tafel Fryers - Legal Rights and Exclusion

This report examines a legal case concerning Tafel Acitifry Fryers, focusing on the application of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The analysis addresses two primary issues: whether consumers, including Peter Pryce, can pursue legal action against Tafel for defective products under the Consumer Rights Act, and if Tafel can limit its liability through exclusion clauses. The report delves into the Act's provisions, particularly sections 9, 11, 19, and 20, concerning satisfactory quality, goods matching descriptions, and consumer rights to reject goods, seek repair, or claim damages. It also explores the validity of exclusion clauses, referencing cases like Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co and Olley v Marlborough Court. The conclusion asserts that consumers have the right to reject faulty goods, seek repair or replacement, and claim damages, regardless of exclusion clauses. The report provides a detailed legal framework for understanding consumer protection in the context of product liability.

Running Head: CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
Answer One:
Issue:
The issue in this given scenario that has been identified is whether the Peter Pryce, Daniel and
Sabdra can bring actions against Tafel Acitifry fryers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Rule:
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is a statute of United Kingdom which aims to protect the rights
of the consumers in relation purchase of goods. It has been provided in section 3 of chapter 2 of
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that this chapter covers any contract for a trader to supply goods
to the consumer in case of a sales contract. It can be stated in accordance with section 9(1) of the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 that in each and every contract involving supply of goods to the
customers, a term stating that the goods are of satisfactory quality would be implied. It has been
provided in subsection 9(2) of the aforementioned act that the in contracts of supply of goods,
such goods would be considered to be of satisfactory quality if any reasonable person assesses
such goods to be satisfactory by considering:
 Description of goods
 The consideration amount paid for the acquisition of the goods if relevant
 Any relevant circumstances.
It has been specifically provided in section 9(3) of the aforementioned act that the following
aspects are assessed to identify whether the quality of the goods were of satisfactory quality:
 Fitness of the goods for the purpose they had been acquired
 Finish and appearance
 Durability
 Safety
 Freedom of goods from defects which are minor
It has been specifically provided in section 11 of the Consumer Rights Act, that goods which are
delivered by description must be match with the description by which they were sold. It has been
further specified in subsection 11(3) that if the supply of goods is done by sample as well as by

2CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
description, the bulk goods delivered are required to not only match with the sample but also
with the description.
In section 19 of the aforementioned act the right of the consumers to enforce terms of the goods
has been provided. The consumers have the right to enforce the terms of the goods if the goods
fail to conform to the provisions and terms as provided in sections 9,10,11,13 and 14. It has been
provided in Subsection 19(3) of the aforementioned act that if the goods delivered to the
consumer fail to conform to the supply contract due to a breach of the terms as mentioned in
sections 9,10,11,13 and 14 consumers have:
 Short term right to reject the goods as provided in section 20 and 22
 Right to repair and replacement as provided in section 23
 Right to final rejection of goods as provided in section 24 and right to a price reduction
as provided in section 20.
It can also be stated in accordance with section 19(11) that a consumer that in specific
circumstances, a consumer has the right to claim damages or specific performance for breach of
the terms of the supply of contract as discussed above.
It has been specifically provided in section 20(7) that once the consumer has used his right to
reject the goods the trader is mandated to give the consumer a refund and the consumer is
obligated to retur the rejected goods to the supplier. It has been further specified in section 23(1)
of the the aforementioned act that the consumer is entitled to ask for repair or replacement of the
goods, if the same have been found to contravene the statutory rights of the consumers. In
subsection 23(20 it has been provided that the supplier has the duty to repair or replace the goods
within a reasonable time period if the consumer asks for repair or replacement of the goods. The
supplier must also bear necessary costs for doing the same.
Application
Thus by analyzing the facts of the case it is clearly evident that Tafel had sold four pieces of their
product Acitifry Fryers to Peter Pryce. In this given case study it is provided that Tafel had
declared that their products are extremely safe while selling them to Peter Pryce. However, the
product caught fire while it was being used by Peter and Peter sustained minor injuries due to the

3CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
same. Thus in this case it can be stated that the contract of supply of goods there was breach of
the provisions of section 9 which state that products or goods sold must be satisfactory quality.
Goods which are unsafe or defective cannot be considered to be satisfactory quality as per
provisions of section 9(3). Further the goods did not match with description as they were
supposed to be safe. Thus in this case the Peter can reject the goods in accordance with section
20. He can also ask for repair replacement of the product in accordance with section 23. He can
also claim damages for the injuries sustained in accordance with section 19(11).
Conclusion
Thus to conclude, it can be stated that Peter can reject the goods, ass for repair or replacement
and claim damages breach of his statutory rights.
Answer Two:
Issue:
The issue in the second scenario is whether Tafel could limit its liability if an exclusion clause
had been incorporated in the contract.
Rule:
It is to be mentioned that exclusion clause in a contract can be defined as a term which aims to
limit the liability of the party who wishes to incorporates such term in the contract (McKendrick
2014). Such term generally restricts the liability of the party in case of breach of contract or
negligence. It can be sated that exclusion clause can be inserted into the contract by:
 Signature
 Notice
 Course of dealing
Signature
In case of signed document the exclusion clause would be held to be effective in limiting the
liability of the party who wishes to rely on it irrespective of the fact whether the other party who
had signed the document had read the term or not. This had been illustrated in the case of Curtis

4CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805. In this notable case the plaintiff had given her
wedding dress for cleaning to the defendants. While giving the dress she signed the document
which contained the clause that the cleaners would not be liable for any damage to the dress of
the customers however arising. The dress was returned badly stained. The cleaners could not
limit the liability for the damage to the dress as the clause had been misrepresented by the
assistant of the defendant (Knapp, Crystal and Prince 2016).
In the landmark case L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 it had been held by the court that
any term which is contained in the document which is signed by the parties would binding upon
them whether they read such clause or not.
Notice
An exclusion clause can be contained in an unsigned document in the form of a ticket or a notice.
In case of representing exclusion clause by a notice or ticket, the general rule is that reasonable
notice of the clause must be provided by the party who wishes to rely on such clause to the other
party to the contract. As held in the notable case Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
reasonable notice of an exclusion clause would be constituted by:
 By incorporating the term in the main contractual document which is likely to attract the
attention of the other party. Such exclusion clause must not be provided through a ticket
which is likely to miss the attention of the other party
 Incorporating the term and bringing to the attention of the party of such exclusion clause
at the time when the contract had been formed (Poole 2016).
In the Notable ne Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 case it had been held by the court that exclusion
was ineffective in limiting and restricting the liability of the defendant as the exclusion had been
printed at the back of a ticket and it was not reasonably possible to have attracted that the
attention of the plaintiff.
Course of Dealing
An exclusion clause can also be incorporated by the course of former dealings eve when
sufficient notice about the existence of such terms has not been given to the other part as held in

5CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
the case Hollier V Rambler Motors [1972] 2 AB 71. The law related to the unfair contract terms
are governed by the provisions of common law and by the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977.
Application
In this given situation it is evident that the product manufactured by Tafel had caught a fire had
caught a fire and caused damage to Peter. However, if an exclusion clause had been present at
the time of entering the contract as held in consequences of the case would have been different.
As held in the case Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 reasonable notice of the clause
was required to be provided by the Tafel to Peter to rely on it. However it has been clearly
specified in section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act that goods must be of acceptable quality and
this is statutory right that is granted to the consumers which cannot be curbed by any exemption
clause as statutory law prevails over common law.
Conclusion:
Thus to conclude it can be stated that Tafel liability would not have been limited even by the
incorporation of an exclusion clause.

6CORPORATE ENVIRONMENT
Reference List:
Olley V Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
Hollier V Rambler Motors [1972] 2 AB 71
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Unfair Contract terms Act 1977
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).
Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.