Consumer Protection Act

Question 1

Case which shows that where a manufacturer has done all it is reasonable to expect with regard to warnings on packaging (goes to S3(2)(a) - meaning of defect), they are not liable under the CPA 1987

Answer 1

Worsley v Tambrands

Question 2

Case where a condom burst - no liability under the CPA because people know that condoms aren’t 100% effective. Test is what the public are generally entitled to expecty

Answer 2

Richardson v LRC Products

Question 3

A case where the manufacturer was liable under the CPA 1987 because they didn’t include a warning about an avoidable, discoverable risk

Answer 3

Abouzaid v Mothercare

Question 4

A case which shows that a known but unavoidable risk is a defect for the purposes of the CPA 1987

Answer 4

A v National Blood Authority (illustration that liability is strict)

Question 5

Coffee is hot. This is not a defect but an inherent characteristic

Answer 5

B (a child) v McDonalds

Question 6

BSI standards are a guideline only. Where there is no statutory duty to comply with BSI standards, no liability will attach to a manufacturer for using a component which falls below the BSI standard

Answer 6

Tesco v Pollard (the public were entitled only to expect that the cap would be difficult for a child to get off. It was)

Question 7

The fact that a defect under CPA 1987 was not present at the time of supply (S4(1)(d) and 4(2)(a)) can be INFERRED from practices and quality control process

Answer 7

Piper v JRI manufacturing

Question 8

The test for the “state of scientific and technical knowledge” for the purposes of the development risks defence under the CPA 1987

Answer 8

Commission v UK: Knowledge to the best qualified expert (note difference to Bolam test). Allowances only for obscure languages, limited distribution (eg a paper in Chinese distributed only in Manchuria)