contract tort

[bin_bin64]

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to solve a problem can anyone help me with this please.

Electra Direct ltd. is a medium sized company manufacturing electrical products and selling direct to the public.

Legal action has been threatened by Anita who was given an electric blanket manufactured by Electra as a birthday present . It is claimed that it burst into flames causing injury to Anita and damage to the furniture in her bedroom.

Now, i'm trying to figure out why Anita can't claim under contract for the injury caused and why is there a wider potential for her under tort rather than contract.
Also, what could be the basis of Anita's claim for compensation under consumer protection act?

[Zacs-Master]

I small an exam question.

[Zacs-Master]

Smell.

[Zacs-Master]

Thought so
http://www.thestudent...wthread.php?t=1998423

[hc4361]

There is no contract between Electra Direct and Anita as Anita received it as a gift, so there is no breach of contract.

[sherrardk]

I would be well ha led off if I got a electric blanket as a birthday present.

[Eve]

If you are a law student, as it looks, it's a pretty simple question which should be very simple to follow through from your notes/books.

Rather than asking a whole question for someone else to answer for you, you would be more likely to get some help if you do the reading and main work yourself and come back with any specific point you are stuck on.

[bin_bin64]

I already know the answer, the reason I'm asking here is to see if others have other ideas that I have not thought about.

All of you seem to be seeing the first part only. However, the important part is why she's got wider chance under tort and what are her basis for claim under CPA 1987.

And before anyone says I already know that the tort to relate this to is: Donoghue v. Stevenson

I would be grateful if you just answer the question if you wish and if you want to bring up conspiracy theory, please save your words.

[tonywiltshire]

Do not get upset bin, is the reference you quote not the famous snail in the ginger beer case that can be used where there is a duty of care, I think the appeal was allowed by a 3 to 2 slim majority.
Best wishes in your chosen career.

[mike11111]

You have answered your own question. There is no claim in contract because Anita is not a party to the contract. There is a case in the tort of negligence based upon the authority which you have cited. Unfortunately as it it twenty years since I took my law degree I have no recollection of the provisions of the CPA 1987 so am unable to help on that matter.

[tonywiltshire]

Sorry bin overlooked the CPA 1987. No excuses Mike.
The CPA 1987 incorporated the EC directive 1985, Civil liability in tort is not limited to the person who purchased the product but to any person who suffers damage, but it must be established that the manufacture with a duty of care was negligent and that negligence was a major cause of the injury. Claims must be made within 3 years of the injury.

[FredPuli43]

Probably because lawyers are old-fashioned and there's less case law on the CPA , if indeed, they know it exists ! We know where we are with remoteness and snails allegedly in ginger beer bottles. I say ' allegedly' becuse everyone's favourite case (ineffective flu and cold remedies come next) only went as high as it did, the House of Lords, on the point of law. According to Lord Justice Megarry, when the case was finally tried at first instance, the judge found that the presence of the snail was not proved by the lady. Not sure whether you get any bonus marks for that recondite knowledge. She was the kind of client that lawyers want to breed from. She brought the case as a pauper, but I hope she tried to appeal the finding of fact, difficult though that would be.

Why do you think one is easier than the other? It may be that the question is only to show that you know of alternatives, unless the CPA says " the common law rule of .... is hereby abolished". The remoteness test seems equally applicable to both, giving rise to an action, in the instant case

[FredPuli43]

Actually, reading the summary above again, it seems that CPA is only for tort. The old rules about privity in contract remain. There's your answer.