CPRs

Question 1

Regina v X ltd

Answer 1

CPRs/Reg 5. Transactional decision

Test is twofold:

1) practice must contain false information to deceive or likely to deceive.
2) that false information must be such that it causes the average consumer to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken.

Facts: 76 year old widower was cold called and pressed to purchase a cctv security system on the basis that he was being targeted by burglars.

Question 2

R v Stone

Answer 2

CPRs/Reg 7. Aggressive Practices

Cold callers procuring sales by deliberately making misrepresentations about the suitability of their products, including ‘reduced’ prices for immediate orders are excessive and dishonest

Facts: salesmen aggressively selling mobility aids, including out staying their welcome and forcing sales.

Question 3

Tesco v Nattrass

Answer 3

CPRs/Reg 3. Professional Diligence

The conduct of one employee is not part of the ‘controlling mind’ of the company and liability could not be attached to them.

Facts: T sold washing powder on discount, once sold out, the manager replaced with regular stock without taking down discounted price causing uncertainty with customers

Question 4

R v Hamilton

Answer 4

CPRs/Reg 3. Failure to exercise due diligence

Professional diligence is the standard of special skill and care a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise with either honest market practice or good faith.

Facts: dodgy builder removed dividing wall of two rooms in a house and carried out the work to a poor standard.

Question 5

Purely Creative v OFT

Answer 5

CPR blacklist practices - sch.1 para 31

D deliberately created a false impression of prize winning and consumer was required to incur cost to claim watch.

Question 6

Hurley v Martinez

Answer 6

CPRs/Reg 17. Defence of Due Diligence

Reliance on information supplied to him from others must be proven.

Facts: M sold imported German bottles of wine inaccurately labelled ‘Alc 8% vol’ instead of 7%, but M argued that they relied on the German producers tests. Held: mistake defence succeeded and appeal failed as it would have been unreasonable for the small dealer to sample all the stock.