THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS IN UNITED KINGDOM
Dr. Muhammad Akbar Khan1
1 Assistant Professor (Law), Faculty of Shariah &
Law, International Islamic University,
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Email: m.akbar@iiu.edu.pk
.
|
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
Keywords: Origin; Development; Consumer
Protection; Law; OFT; |
|
The emergence of consumer
protection regime in the United Kingdom is not a recent phenomenon. A
plethora of jurisprudence has been developed on the rights and liabilities of
sellers and buyers in the UK. The present consumer protection regime in the
UK did not appear out of thin air, rather it is the result of some important
developments which took place from pre-industrial era to post-industrial
revolution. During the pre-industrial revolution era, doctrine of caveat
emptor held prime importance, but with the increase in number of goods and
services, this doctrine became redundant and a greater responsibility was
shifted on the sellers in sale transactions. During the twentieth century, a
need was felt to enforce specific consumer protection laws in the UK and thus
a comprehensive framework of laws was established to protect and safeguard
the consumer rights. There are several enforcement authorities in the UK
which ensure that the rights of consumers are safeguarded in the best
possible way. It can be thus said that the legal framework in the UK is quite
robust and strives to provide relief to consumers in the best possible way. Publisher All rights reserved. |
INTRODUCTION
The English common
law began in the 11th century as the municipal law of Norman England. Although
there are elements in it which antedated the Norman Conquest in 1066, it is
distinctly discernible as an emerging legal system only from around the
thirteenth century. Even then it was for some centuries a haphazard collection
of individual decisions, not unified by any significant strands of basic
principle. It was only in later centuries that the work of scholars assembled
what Tenneyson described as “a wilderness of single instances” into an ordered
body of legal knowledge. The expression, “common law” first came to be applied
to this legal system, in consequence of the step taken by Henry II by the
Assizes of Clarendon (1166) and Northampton (1176) [13] in reorganizing the
legal system by requiring judges of the realm to go out regularly on circuit
and bring the King’s justice to every man. This had the effect of evolving a
law common to the whole realm as opposed to local custom which might vary from
one district to another. It was thus that England began to acquire common law.
The basic source of the common law apart from parliamentary enactments is
the great wealth of judicial decisions commencing with the Year Books in 1289
and reaching down to modern times through a vast number of law reports. One of
the most important sources of common law is precedent. Historically, common law
provides us with the latest example of this interesting phenomenon of expansion
of the domain of certain legal systems beyond their original homes. Beginning
from the 16th century, the influence and even the direct application of common
law extended to North America and to Australia along with the offshoots of its
parent society which took root on those continents. Later, British colonial
rule extended the influence of common law to many parts of Asia and Africa
where the present laws of the newly independent countries still reflect the
strong impact of common law. According to the same yardstick, common law
undoubtedly emerges as one of the major world legal systems.
EVOLUTION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAW IN ENGLAND
The basic purpose of this research paper is to
trace the origin and development of consumer protection in English legal
system. The roots of consumer protection laws are found in the religious books.
In the Bible, various quotes are found that commands for the consumer
protection indirectly such as: “You shall
not put a stumbling block in the path of the blind”.
It has also stated: “Just weights and measures shall you have”.
It has further stated: “If you lend money to any of my people with
you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact
interest from him”. The historical
evolution of English law on consumer protection can be examined in the
following periods of history:
(a) Pre-Industrial Period:
In the period
before industrial boost in eighteenth century, people consumed fewer products
as they do today and there were not very many products as it is case today. The
social set up was very much simple. This situation was dealt by the English law
principle of “caveat emptor” i.e. let the buyer beware. The philosophy of
course in those days was one of individualism so that consumers were expected
to look after themselves. There were few laws to protect consumers. Only some
laws exist related to weights and measures of bread and ale. The consumers used to know personally the
producers and they would go out of business if they offered poor service or
products. Thus, in this era protection was largely through self-help.
In seventeenth century, manorial courts known as
‘courts leet’ had a persistent role
in safeguarding the trading standards and suppression of local nuisance, and in
supervision of all other functions that we would associate with consumer
protection and public health. Court of leet appointed an officer styled an ‘aleconner’, more like a modern weight
and measure inspector, to examine pricing, weight and quality of bread, ale and
beer for sale. Same system was also prevalent until sixteenth century in
England (1664) to control coal price and weight.
(b)The Period of Industrial
Revolution (18th Century):
In this period,
people had started moving to cities and had begun working in the factories and
industries. The culture of manufacturing products started with the development
of heavy machinery and many opportunities for work and labour were created.
People have started consuming products of companies they didn’t know. A large
scale of new products became easily available in the markets. The large-scale
production of products after the industrial revolution effected changes in the
approach of the judges. Sellers and consumers were no longer contracting in a
single place rather they used to bargain from a distance. Moreover, sellers
started to realize the importance of marinating good quality of the products in
order to be competitive in a big market where the same product was sold by
different producers..
These changes were not rapid and still in 1802, in Parkinson v. Lee, the King’s Bench Court denied the existence of
an implied warranty. In this particular case the consumer decided to purchase
from the seller five pockets of hops that were supposed to be warranted by a
sample that the buyer had had the possibility to examine. The rest of the
products later delivered compatible with the sample but had been treated with
water in order to increase their weight. Despite the fact that it was not
possible for the customer to find out that the products had become worthless
the court passed verdict in favor of the customer. Le Blanc J., who directed
the jury, expressly asserted that the ratio decidendi did not involve
the implication any non-written warranty. Hence, caveat emptor was still followed as a basic principle but many
courts deviated from it. The concept of
consumer protection throughout the 18th century involved protection
from excessive prices levied on primary commodities and protection from short
measures. The statutes of these times, encompassing different jurisdictions,
were related to certain price related items such as bread, beer, meat and fuel.
These laws were not as such covering all aspects of consumer protection but
were designed to keep the states regulatory role over some areas while
neglecting important aspects of consumer protection. The motivation behind
these laws was to protect the honest traders from unfair competitors. For
instance, laws related to enforce uniformity in weight and measures as, the
assize of bread and ale of 1226 laid down a scheme to control the amount of
bread and ale. Similarly, the weight of bread was controlled
by Bread Act 1836 which required bread to be unadulterated and sold by weight.
The reference to the uniformity in weight can be traced back to Magna Carta in 1225.
(c )The Period of Industrial Society (19th
Century):
As it has been
discussed earlier that due to the industrial revolution the methods of
production of products had developed however not much case law can be found
about the harms caused by complex products and machines in the first part of
the nineteenth century. In this period the case law concentrated on the sale of
raw material that was used in the process of production.
Karl Llewellyn, however, has pinpointed that since the first part of the
nineteenth century some changes took place such as the sellers started to make
good will to gain future benefits. The law of seller and buyer’ relationship had to change, to adapt to these new
developments. In this period individual craftsman was replaced by large
manufacturers. On the other hand society also evolved and population converted
from subsistence to a mass consumption society. In such situations it was easy
for consumers to be deceived, misled and to be sold products of low quality. In
this period the legal principle of ‘caveat emptor’ was still applicable which
did not place any responsibility whatsoever on the seller for defective
products. The government had almost no interference in transactions between a
seller and a consumer. The traders also disapproved government intervention and
they extracted full benefits out of the new markets that mass production had
created. They relied on the free market economy that is based on free demand
and supply rule. It was presumed that the market forces would balance between
the powers of the manufacturer and that of consumer and it would help in
regulating the quality of goods and their prices fairly. But this did not
happen. The consumers started realizing that the application of caveat emptor
put the consumer at a great disadvantage. The law of tort or negligence hadn't
developed at that stage as it was in its infancy.
During the 19th century a considerable body of case law
developed around the buyer/seller relationship in England. Sir Mackenzie
Chalmers was given the task of drafting Sale of Goods legislation which
codified the common law position and the Sale of Goods Act appeared on the
statute book in 1893 in Britain. This is the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. In this
context Prof. Howells writes:
“The first Sale of Goods Act, codifying the common law position, appeared
in statute books in 1893. At that time, any implied terms as to the quality of
the goods in question were default rules that could be excluded from the
contract if the parties agreed. This position changed in 1973 with the
introduction of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act which made implied
terms non-excludable Excluding minimum guarantees of quality would have been
viewed as grossly unfair, attracting concern about consumer inequality of
bargaining power and potential exploitation by traders.”
However, there was
no recognized legal right of the consumer to a safe product or service. The
product suppliers controlled the marketplace to a great extent, while consumers
of these products were very much at the risk. The position of the courts was very weak to develop public
policy in this regard. Common law had no exact rules to protect the consumers
and most cases used to be decided in favor of the seller. The law of Equity
later on recognized the unfavorable situation of the consumer. The famous case
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. was a step towards the realization of
consumer protection.
(d)The Period of Mass Consumption Society (20th
Century)
In this period
great growth in retail chains, advertisements and use of credit began that led
to a consumer revolution in a sense that large range of products and services
were now available to consumers. It was not easy to bring a change in the legal
structure of England at that time to the conservative nature of the judges.
However, a landmark case brought about a significant change in the existing
legal regime in the UK. This was the famous case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson.
It can be classified as a classical case of a consumer against a larger
producer. It appears from a thorough analysis of the case that a legal debate
was generated on the issue among the then best legal minds in England. One of
the strong arguments against Mrs. Donoghue’s position was that if she was to
recover damages, then the door for such claims will open up and everybody who
ever had any slight harm would be able to seek remedy. No doubt that there was
a great resistance against it. Moreover, it was unknown to English law to imply duty so widely and sacrifice the
classical rules of common law.
After 1945, consumer law, litigation and the law of negligence developed to
a large scale. Due to Ralph Nadar who challenged the safety of cars against the
General Motors in 1960, people became more aware of their rights. In the 1960s,
consumer protection became a matter of concern to a small consumer. A consumer
movement developed at grass-roots level because many western consumers became
dissatisfied with unsafe and inferior products.
In USA and UK, the call for the protection of consumer rights from ordinary
consumers was strong enough. Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed 1964, USA, and the effects of the drug
thalidomide sparked similar calls from Australians. About 1962, John F. Kennedy
set out a series of fundamental rights for consumers, for example, the right to
safety, the right to information.
During this time, there was a great increase in choice of goods and
services, transactions became more remote, technology advanced at high level,
credit became available and advertising became essential factor for marketing
of products. Despite all these developments this period has also created many
problems for the consumers such as
difficulty in assessing the quality of similar goods, consumers will not
always deal directly with the manufacturers of products that may cause
difficulties in seeking remedies if problems arise, difficulty in assessing
quality and value for money, increased capacity to incur debts consumers ought
to consider the added cost of using credit, increasingly goods and services
represent status and image that increases the temptation to spend and incur
debts. In this period many consumer groups, government and non-government
organization started a movement for the promotion and protection consumers’
interest. Due to this movement, the states were required to make laws that
ensured the protection of consumers against unfair trade and commercial
practices and defective products and services. Although consumers were still
required to be vigilant and make rational decisions before making large
contracts, the state established various governmental organizations that helped
consumers if a problem occurred.
CURRENT STATUS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION IN ENGLAND
Consumer Protection has become unavoidable due
to the advance technology and rapid increase in number of goods and services.
The Common law has offered protection to the consumers in the areas of
contracts, torts and criminal law for hundreds of years. There are number of
laws, in addition to those laws whose basic concern is consumer protection such
as prosecution of fraud, protecting property, or facilitating litigation etc.
Therefore, consumer protection cannot be conceived in a single document. In
this context Peter Cartwright writes:
“In this age of advance technology, consumer protection has become
increasingly necessary as the number of goods and services available has grown
dramatically. The common law, which has operated in the area of contracts,
torts and criminal law for hundreds of years, offers some protection to
consumers. In addition to those laws that specify consumer protection as their
primary concern, numerous other provisions have the effect of protecting the
consumer, for example by streamlining the prosecution of fraud, protecting
property, or facilitating litigation. As a result, the boundaries of consumer
protection law are not easily drawn.” The United Kingdom has actively responded
to the developments in the area of consumer protection through the introduction
of a number of statutes, regulations and administrative authorities to respond
to the new challenges in the field.
In this regard, the UK government introduced a wide range of legislation
covering various aspects of the basic needs of consumer interests such as The
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), The Fair
Trading Act, 1973, The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, Unfair
Contract Terms Act, 1977, The Sale of Goods Act, 1979, Supply of Goods and
services Act, 1982, Consumer Protection Act, 1987,The Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from
Business Premises) Regulations 1987,
The Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, The Consumer Protection
(Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers
Regulations 2002, the Enterprise Act of 2002 and many others. As a member of the EU, the UK must
also implement legislation passed by the EU. An important development in the
area of consumer protection was the enactment of the Consumer Rights Act, in
2015. This legislation brought about significant changes in the existing
consumer protection regime in the UK. The Government took the following stance
for endorsement of this new law:
“There is general agreement across business and consumer groups that the
existing UK consumer law is unnecessarily complex. It is fragmented and, in
places, unclear, for example where the law has not kept up with technological
change or lacks precision or where it is couched in legalistic language. There
are also overlaps and inconsistencies between changes made by virtue of
implementing European Union (EU) legislation alongside un-amended preexisting
UK legislation.”
The legal
framework on consumer protection is encapsulated in different statutes which
often create confusion in the mind of the consumer. Sometimes this complex
legal framework also leads to inconsistencies and contradictions. This
situation justified the need for bringing a consolidated piece of legislation
which dealt with consumer rights. Prior to the Consumer Rights Act, 2015 the UK
consumer law was unnecessarily complex, fragmented, ambiguous, and lacked
precision.
The Consumer Rights Act, 2015 strives to protect the rights of the
consumers and to provide greater role to the regulatory agents for better
enforcement of consumer rights. With the aim to safeguard the consumer rights
in an effective manner, this law defines consumer rights in relation to faulty
goods, services and digital content, the law also provides comprehensive rules
regarding unfair terms in consumer contracts,
and to control the anti-competitive tendencies in consumer market this
legislation provides greater role to Competition Appeal Tribunal.
The Consumer
Rights Act 2015 is a landmark legislation in the area of consumer protection in
the UK. This particular legislation strives to streamline, strengthen and
modernize the overall consumer protection regime in the UK. This legislation would play a vital role in
harmonization and consolidation of consumer laws in the UK and would result in
effective protection of consumer rights.
The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 is of prime importance for the research
in hand that seeks remedy to the consumers affected by defective products.
These statutes have given various definitions of the term ‘consumer’. So far,
there is no universally agreed definition of the term ‘consumer’, although a
number of statutes, both criminal and civil, attempt to define it for their own
purposes.
Similarly, the UK government has established many departments under one
central government on local and national levels with an adequate
homogeneousness and uniformity between both levels. The role of the central
government in relation to consumer protection can be described as the
initiation and furtherance of legislative policy and supervising the
enforcement of consumer protection measures designed to protect the economy and
safety interests of consumers within the general constraints of the market.
Consequently, consumers are protected from unsafe products, fraud,
deceptive advertising, and unfair business practices through a mixture of
national and local governmental laws and the existence of many private bodies
with legal right to take action. These public and private bodies both protect
consumers and, at a formal level, equip them with the knowledge they need to
protect themselves, while also putting pressure on businesses to be more
efficient and innovative.
ENFORCEMENT OF CONSUMER LAW
IN
UNITED KINGDOM
The role of
central government in the area of consumer protection is to promote legislative
policy, oversee the implementation of legislation and supervise the work of
various government agencies.
There is a strong
relationship between consumer protection and competition policy in the United
Kingdom. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had played an important role in
consumer protection and implementation of competition law in the UK. In the
United Kingdom, trade practice law has historically been characterized by
decentralized enforcement. Local trading standards offices had exclusive
jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, whereas
the Office of Fair Trading had limited enforcement powers.
Governmental bodies had followed traditional approaches of dealing with
problems by using a reactive rather than proactive approach in addressing the
new problems. To tackle those difficulties, and to alleviate the huge concern
about inconsistency and the need for coordination in enforcement, the model was
changed as increasing enforcement responsibilities were transferred to the new
independent official body.
Two major steps were introduced by UK government to enhance consumer
protection through administrative bodies. The first was the establishment of
the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which has become the United Kingdom’s
competition and consumer protection authority and which works in partnership
with Trading Standard Services (TSS) across the United Kingdom to promote and
protect the interests of consumers and businesses. The model was adopted to
simulate the US Federal Trade Commission model. Therefore, a variety of powers
and functions were conferred upon this new independent and nonpolitical office
by the Fair Trading Act 1973. The official rationale for the creation of the
OFT was to remove the regulation of competition and consumer policy from the
political arena, encouraging continuity and expertise in the development of
policy on a long-term basis. Administrative regulation was also justified in
terms of its being a response to the limitation of judicial and legislative
processes. A major objective of the newly created office was to maintain and
promote an effective market mechanism by responding to market failures attributable
to uncompetitive practices and information failure.
Second, the government has also developed some degree of uniformity in
enforcement through the creation in 1978 of the Local Authorities Coordinating
Body on Trading Standards (LACOTS), which subsequently became known as
‘LACROS’. This body was created to suggest the central government on reform
proposals, provide for the collection and exchange of technical information,
negotiate voluntary standards of quality with trade associations; promote
uniformity in interpretation and aids in the coordination of enforcement work.
Accordingly, in order to avoid inconsistency in the scope of operations,
the UK model had delegated powers to OFT to protect consumer rights while also
establishing LACROS, which was meant to act as a supporting department to
enhance and promote uniformity in interpretation and aids in the coordination
of enforcement work.
Additionally, the enactment of the Enterprise Act of 2002 enhanced the role
of the OFT. Firstly, it changed the structure of the OFT from that of a
Director General Model to a board structure in 2003. The new model required the
board to be composed of a Chair and at least four other members who are
appointed for terms no longer than five years. This step was taken by the
government to reduce the risks of capture, to secure stability and to limit
idiosyncrasy.
Secondly, it has given the OFT various functions to act effectively,
monitoring unfair business practices that affect the interests of consumers,
and the power to recommend reforms to the Secretary of State. The OFT was also
given an important new role of taking rule-making initiatives to propose
regulations for those practices which seemed to adversely affect consumers’
economic interests. Another function was to seek assurances from individual
traders that they would refrain from persisting in a course of conduct that was
deemed detrimental and unfair to consumer interests.
The new
centralized enforcement model had more advantages in regard to enforcement
through national agencies. There are arguments for central enforcement; indeed,
one test case, or a communication directed to a head office, may secure
countrywide compliance, avoiding a multiplicity of local actions. In addition,
the national agencies would enjoy reduced compliance costs. A further
supporting argument for centralized enforcement was that national agencies may
have more bargaining power vis-à-vis national firms, although this must be
balanced against the potential danger of agency capture. National agencies may
also take advantage of economies of scale in producing and collecting certain
information, for example, as in testing the safety of products, developing
standards and collecting information for licensing purposes.
SHORTCOMINGS IN THE OFFICE OF
FAIR TRADING
Although OFT
played an important role in ensuring fair trade and protecting consumer rights
in the UK, it was also criticized by many people for the lack of efficiency and
ineffective implementation of its policies. The Office of Fair Trading admitted
its mistakes in failure to build a good case for British Airways price-fixing
trial in 2010. OFT could have procured important evidence (companies computers)
but they refrained from doing so, hoping that the accused companies would cooperate
in the investigation. OFT’s failure in this particular case attracted bad
publicity for the organization. Furthermore, this fiasco also raised many
questions on the efficacy of OFT. Some experts believe that through settlement
offers many business enterprises go unpunished for violating the competition
law in the United Kingdom. Serious concerns were raised by some quarters
regarding the settlement offers made by OFT to such business entities. An
instance in this regard is the investigation undertaken by the OFT in the case
of price-fixing of dairy products. In this case seven out of nine supermarkets
applied for the settlement, while the remaining two chose to fight the charges
leveled against them. However, the OFT had to drop three alleged violations of
competition laws due to insufficient evidence. Consequently, OFT was compelled
to lower the already agreed fines under the settlement. Tesco was one of the
firms which initially refused to settle but after the subsequent developments
agreed to settle while publicly denying any violation of law. Following was the
stance taken by Tesco in this particular case:
“We firmly maintain that we are innocent of all allegations against us and
at no point sought to collude with other retailers or dairy processors on prices
[…] but given the passage of time and cost of litigation, we are keen to bring
this process to a close.”
This particular
case also resulted in criticism on the performance of OFT especially in the
implementation of anti-trust laws. In the wake of these circumstances, an
overwhelming need was felt to overhaul the existing regulatory structure for
fair trading and consumer protection.
The Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (formerly known as Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills, BIS) held a consultation on options for
reform in competition regime in 2011. Under this consultation it was purposed
that a merger of OFT and Competition Commission (CC) into a single body
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) would improve the overall competition
regime in the UK. This proposal was
based on three main considerations which are as follows:
After in-depth
consultations, it was decided to transfer the functions of Office of Fair
Trading to two new authorities. In order to promote fair trade and competition
in the market, the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) was established on
April 2014. During the same year, the regulation for consumer credit industry
was transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the newly formed Financial
Conduct Authority. Since their establishment, these two authorities have played
an important role in the protection of consumer rights. The role and
responsibilities of these two regulatory bodies is discussed as below:-
COMPETITION AND MARKET AUTHORITY (CMA)
In the light of
the suggestions put forth by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skill
(BIS), Competition and Market Authority (CMA) took over many functions of the
Competition Commission (CC) and Office of Fair Trading (OFT). Competition and
Market Authority (CMA) was created under the provisions of Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Act, 2013 and superseded both the Consumer Commission and
Office of Fair Trading in 2014. Competition and Market Authority (CMA) is the
chief competition agency and consumer enforcement authority that works for the
benefit of consumers both within and outside UK. Following are the chief
responsibilities of Competition and Market Authority in the UK:
This is an
all-encompassing role and CMA has mandate to ensure that there is fair
competition in the market. In addition to CMA, there are regulators in the UK
which strive to promote competitive practices in the market. The role of
regulators is concurrent to CMA. In the nutshell, CMA is playing an effective
role in fostering competition in the UK and thereby contributing in protection
of consumer interests.
FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY (FCA)
The regulation of
consumer credit was transferred from Office of Fair Trading to Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA). The ambit of FCA’s operations extends to agreements
between a 'lender' and a 'borrower', where such agreements are entered with
individuals, sole traders, partnerships of two or three partners (unless all
the partners are bodies corporate), and other unincorporated bodies (again,
unless they consist entirely of bodies corporate). Credit agreements entered
with companies or bodies corporate are not regulated by the FCA under the
consumer credit regime. The businesses which offer goods and services on
credit, lend money to consumers or provide debt solutions or advice to
consumers are carrying out consumer credit activities and are regulated by FCA.
Therefore, the operations of FCA is meant to protect the rights of consumers in
credit arrangements.
Unlike its
predecessor (Office of Fair Trading OFT), the FCA is empowered to make and
apply binding rules on firms and their activities in credit markets, thereby
exercising stronger control on credit engaged in credit business and thus
better consumer protection. This regulatory oversight plays a pivotal role in
ensuring that the consumer credit firms are not only driven by corporate
interests rather they should also take into account the interests of the
consumers while providing credit facilities.
The government has
enhanced the role of FCA in relation to regulation of consumer credit. Such
role was not given to the Office of Fair Trading. The Government has included
twelve new areas within the ambit of regulation. However, the important areas
among these are:
The regulation of
these areas has contributed in protection of consumer interests in the credit
market. Furthermore, FCA strives to enhance the integrity of the UK financial
system which ultimately benefits firms, individuals and society as a whole.
Moreover, to
practically impose the consumer protection laws in England there are various
organizations such as Citizen’s Advice Bureau (Cab), Consumer Association,
National Consumer Council, Ombudsmen, etc. that help consumers understand their
rights and responsibilities. These organizations also play a vital role in
protection of consumers’ interests. The legal system is also meant to regulate
the behavior of suppliers of products and services and try to reduce the number
of consumer disputes.
CONCLUSION
The development of
consumer protection law began a long time ago in the United Kingdom. Initially
the principles aimed at protecting the rights of consumers were vague and
incomprehensive. The changing needs of the society, however, resulted in a
better and all-encompassing consumer protection regime in the country. Consumer
protection law aims to safeguard the rights and interests of the consumers.
Thus, in order to be more responsive to the needs of consumers, the consumer
protection law in the UK takes into consideration various consumer rights such
as product safety, wholesomeness, product standards, fair trade in market and
fair terms for consumers. Without effective regulation the implementation of
any law is next to impossible. The case of consumer protection law is no
different. The regulation and enforcement of consumer protection law is
entrusted to a number of authorities in the UK. Initially the Office of Fair
Trading played a phenomenal role in implementing fair trade in the consumer
markets. Now the functions of the OFT have been transferred to two new
authorities namely the Competition and Markets Authority and Financial Conduct
Authority. These two authorities are responsible to ensure that the rights of
consumers are not compromised. Thus, it can be said the consumer protection
regime in the UK is all-encompassing, comprehensive and quite effective. The
laws and the enforcement authorities in the UK ensure that consumers are not
exploited and their rights are protected in the best possible way.
REFERENCES
Abdulla M. A. Al-Ghafri, ‘The Inadequacy of Consumer
Protection in the UAE: The Need for Reform, a thesis submitted to the
department of law, Brunal University, UK for the degree of doctor of philosophy
in law in 2013, 280.
Black, J. (1996), Constitutionalizing Self-Regulation,
The Modern Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, 24-55.
Brian W Harvey and Deborah L Parry, ‘The Law of
Consumer Protection and Fair Trading”, Fifth ed, London, Dublin &
Edinburgh; Butterworth 1996, 1-4.
Cardwell, K. (1987), The Consumer Protection Act 1987:
Enforcement of Provisions Governing the Safety of Consumer Goods, The Modern
Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 622-638, 628-632
Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] QB 256.
Cartwright, P., Crime, Punishment, and Consumer
Protection, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2007, 1-20.
Consumer Rights Act, 2015.
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, “A
Competition Regime for Growth: A Consultation on Options for Reform”, March
2011, 14.
Donoghue vs. Stevenson [1932] AC 562.
Exodus 22:25.
Explanatory notes to the Consumer Rights Act, 2015
(paragraph 5)- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
G. Howells and S. Weatherill, Consumer Protection Law,
2005, 576-577.
Gamal Moursi Badr, “Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other
Legal Systems”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 26, No. 2,
[Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City,
Utah. February 24-25, 1977] (Spring, 1978),187-198.
Harvey, B. and Parry, D. Consumer Protection and Fair
Trading, 6th edition, Butterworths, 2000, 49.
IoannisLianos, Damien Geradin, Handbook on European
Competition Law: Substantive Aspects, (Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), 231.
J. A. Jolowicz, The Protection of the Consumer and
Purchaser of Goods Under EnglishLaw’ Modern Law Review, Vol.32, No.1, January
1969; http://bilder.buecher.de/zusatz/23/23331/23331195_inha_1.pdf).
Jaffe, L. (1973), The Illusion of the Ideal
Administration, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 7, 1183-1191.
Karl L. Llewellin, Cases and Materials on the Law of
Sales, London, Callaghan & Co. 1930, p.204.
Katalin Judit Cseres, Competition Law and Consumer
Protection, (Kluwer Law International: 2005), 163.
Kennedy, John, F., Special Message to the Congress on
Protecting the Consumer Interests, 15, March, 1962 available at:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9108, last accessed on 29.05.2015.
Leviticus 19:14.
Lorraine
Conway, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Briefing Paper, House of Commons Library.
Mark Furse, The Criminal Law of Competition in the UK
and in the US: Failure and Success, (Edward Elgar Publishing: 2012), 153.
OFT Press Release 170/70, “OFT Update on Dairy
Investigation”, 30th April, 2010.
Oughton D. and Lowry J., Text book on Connsumer Law,
Blackstone Press, 2nd Ed., 2000, 21.
Paula Gilker,
“The Consumer Rights Act 2015- A Bastion for European Consumer Rights?” Legal
Studies, Vol.37 No.1, 2017, pp.78-102 available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lest.12139/pdf.
Paula Gilker, “The Consumer Rights Act 2015- A Bastion
for European Consumer Rights?” Legal Studies, Vol.37 No.1, 2017, 78-102
available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lest.12139/pdf.
Peter Cartwright, Consumer Protection and the Criminal
Law: Law, Theory, and Policy in the UK, Cambridge University Press, p.1.
Ramsay I., Consumer Law, 2007, p. 454; Abdulla M. A.
Al-Ghafri, ‘The Inadequacy of Consumer Protection in the UAE: The Need for
Reform, a thesis submitted to the department of law, Brunal University, UK for
the degree of doctor of philosophy in law in 2013, 280.
Rupert Neate, “Office of Fair Trading admits it ‘made
mistakes’ in collapsed British Airways price-fixing trial”, The Telegraph,
December 17, 2010.
Stephan A. “OFT Dairy-Price Fixing Case Leaves Sour
Taste for Cooperating Parties in Settlement,” ECLR, 30 (11), (2010) 14-16.
The Enterprise
Act, 2002.
V Balakrishna Eradi “Consumer protection
jurisprudence” India; Lexis nexus and Butterworth publishers, 1999.
Waller, S., Brady, J., Jillian, G. and Acosta, R.
(2011), Consumer Protection in the United States: An Overview, European Journal
of Consumer Law, available at; SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000226, last
accessed on 17/05/2014.
Weeramantry, GC, An Invitation to the Law, Lawman
Private Limited, New Delhi, India, 1998, 44.