Dilip’s Legal Rights as a Consumer

In this case, Dilip is a consumer because he purchased the table for use in his apartment and hence he is protected by the Consumer Rights Act of 1st October 2015 (Giliker, 2017). Under this statute, the consumer is supposed to be provided with goods that meet the description, are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and installed appropriately when the installation was part of the deal (Howells and Weatherill, 2017). Apparently, the table purchased by Dilip is not of satisfactory quality and does not meet the description. Additionally, depending on the nature of the scratch and Dilip’s lifestyle, the table could not be meeting its purpose. Therefore, Dilip has up to 30 days from 2nd of October 2018, to reject the table according to the law. Chic Home is supposed to either replace the table, repair or provide a full refund to Dilip within a fortnight from the date when the complaint will be made.

Since Chic Home are retailers and not manufactures, repairing the damage might seem impossible and hence Dilip should seek replacement or refund. According to the law, the replacement should not cost Dilip anything and hence all the costs including transportation should be covered by Chic Home (Howells and Weatherill, 2017). If Dilip fails to make claim within 30 days, he will still be liable to replacement or repair of the scratch if he makes the complaint within 6 months of the purchase. In this case, the refund will not be possible. Moreover, the completion of the repair or replacement should be within a reasonable period like in the case of Clegg and another v Olle Andersson (trading as Nordic Marine) 2003 EWCA Civ 320. Hence Dilip should lure Chic home to an agreement of the deadline of replacement. If the replacement is not met within a reasonable time, Dilip can either ask for further repair/replacement, ask for a refund or reduction in the cost as compensation for the damage.

Dilip legal rights as a business

According to the sales of goods act 1979 section 14, the table provided by Chic Home does not meet the fitness for purpose. The law here stresses the quality of the product and hence the scratch on the table makes it unfit to serve the role intended (Ortiz and Viscasillas, 2012). Since the scratch was concealed suing the price tag, it implies that Chic Home was aware of the damage and unfitness of the table (Mai, 2015). Therefore, Dilip can reject the goods and request for a partial refund, replacement of the table or repairs within a reasonable time like in the case of Clegg and another v Olle Andersson (trading as Nordic Marine) 2003 EWCA Civ 320. Dilip should not accept the table because of his right to make claim or terminate the contract will be waived. The complaint should be raised within a reasonable time. Nevertheless, Dilip will be liable to make claim for replacement or replacement of the table because he did not inspect the table before completing the transaction.

On the other hand, Dilip did not clarify on the specific purpose of the table and hence Chic Home can defend themselves in the court indicating that the scratch is too minor such that it cannot interfere with the common use of the table (Sharrock, 2010). Such an argument in the court can only make Dilip liable for only claiming for the repair or compensation for the damage. According to BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809 case law, a refund is only liable when the purchaser has described the purpose of the item being bought. In this case, Markers UK Ltd was compensated because they had written to BSS informing them on the type and purpose of the valves and the adaptor purchased. BSS delivered the wrong type and measurements of valves needed.

Negligent Misstatement Court Cases

In most cases, a special relationship has to exist between two parties for the misstatement negligence to take place. Most courts in the country consider the type and nature of the special relationship and the reliability between the two parties. For instance, the judges found professional negligence in the case Antoniades V East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWHC 517 (QB) (16 March 2007). Here, the claimant developed a reversible brain damage within 17 minutes of the birth due to the failure of the doctor to remove the tracheal obstruction in time. The doctor also failed to report the obstruction to other health care providers rendering their interventions ineffective. The court decided that the doctor failed to apply the learnt knowledge in the medical school. If the doctor has sanctioned the obstruction within 12 minutes of birth, the patient could have not developed irreversible brain damage. Also, if the doctor reported other to other healthcare workers regarding the case proper interventions could have been taken to manage the client. Therefore, NHS was found liable for negligent misstatement. The court also found evidence of negligent misstatement in Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573 case law.

On the other hand, existent of special relationship does not mean negligent misstatement must have taken place when things fail to happen as anticipated. Since most professionals depend on the information provided by the party seeking advice, their decisions could be wrong not because of incompetence but because of using wrong facts. For example, the judges did not find negligent misstatement in the Al-Ruby V Quist Solicitors (A Firm) [2007] EWHC 2297 (QB) (11 October 2007) case. Here, two sets of proceedings were issued by the complainant before informing the solicitors. The 2nd one was the one that regarded negligent misstatement concerning a letter that had been issued on 9th March 1998. The issuance of the claim form was done in December 2003 but issued the form with the claim letter on March 2004. The defendant was informed by the claimant of the case on May 2004. The actions of the claimant became statute barred because the claim forms were not provided in time and thus the defendant firm struck out the claims successfully. Conclusively, the negligent misstatement claim was also bound to fail and therefore there was no possibility of making it good by a way of a claim for negligence.

References

Howells, G. and Weatherill, S., 2017. Consumer protection law. Routledge.

Giliker, P., 2017. The Consumer Rights Act 2015–a bastion of European consumer rights?. Legal Studies, 37(1), pp.78-102.

Mai, N.K., 2015. Non-Conformity of Goods and Limitation Clause under CISG, UCC and UK Law.

Al-Ruby V Quist Solicitors (A Firm) [2007] EWHC 2297 (QB) (11 October 2007)

Antoniades V East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust [2007] EWHC 517 (QB) (16 March 2007).

BSS Group Plc v Fabricators (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809

Clegg and another v Olle Andersson (trading as Nordic Marine) 2003 EWCA Civ 320

Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 573

Illescas Ortiz, R. and Perales Viscasillas, P., 2012. The scope of the Common European Sales Law: B2B, goods, digital content and services. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 11(3), pp.241-258.

Sharrock, R.D., 2010. Judicial control of unfair contract terms: The implications of Consumer Protection Act. S. Afr. Mercantile LJ, 22, p.295.