Lauren Cleveland
Unit 5: Consumer Law – Assignment 2
When a consumer enters a contract, they are buying a good and a service; a
supplier providing work is the ‘service’ and the materials act as the ‘goods’.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
provides protection for the consumer through implied terms. However, these
rights only apply where the service is given from a business (trader) to a
consumer.
Every ‘sale’ involves a contract where parties agree to do something, this
comes in a form of either an ‘expressed term’ or an ‘implied term’.
Expressed terms are contractual terms that have been specifically stated by
and agreed by both parties at the time the contract is made, these clauses are
set out in writing. If an express term has been broken, there will have been a
breach of contract, subsequently meaning the buyer must return the goods
and recover all money previously paid.
Implied terms in a contract are matters that have not been expressively agreed
between parties, however, are automatically expected to be included in the
contract through terms of common law.
In BTEC Applied Law book consumer, business and goods under The Consumer
Rights Act 2015 are defined as:
Section 2, Consumer is somebody buying goods for their own personal use,
(not for business use).
S.2, Business is a person or organisation selling goods or services. A trader
would be acting as a ‘business’.
S.3, Goods are characterised as being any solid, physical item that a person can
touch or handle. Goods can be bought over the counter, by telephone or
online. ‘Goods’ can be both old and new.
Dictionary definition of ‘services’ is illustrated as being “the action of helping or
doing work for someone”. A consumer pays a business for a ‘service’ this
entails the trader doing work for that consumer.
1
, Lauren Cleveland
CRA 2015, S.49 Reasonable care and skill
Section 49 only applies where the seller is acting ‘in the course of a business’,
meaning this doesn’t cover friends and family doing work for you. The focus is
on how the service has been carried out, rather than how good/bad the end
result is. It looks at the ‘reasonable care and skill’ (an implied term that is
expected) that has been applied to the service, taking into consideration the
price paid and any relevant industry standards. Price paid refers to, for
example a junior hairdresser vs a top-rated London salon, relates to the term
‘you pay for what you get’. If you’re paying over £100 for a haircut in London,
you would expect a great service taking reasonable care and skill. However, a
junior hairdresser should still take reasonable care, but the skill may not be as
good which reflects in the price hence why it would be cheaper.
Relevant standards indicate to, for example, builders wearing correct safety
uniform and complying with health and safety regulations.
In the case of Wilson v Best Travel (1993), Wilson tried to sue best travel,
arguing the glass door he fell through on holiday in Greece wasn’t of the
thickness required by UK safety standards and that them as company hadn’t
shown the required care and skill in selecting a hotel. Was held that Wilson lost
the case as enough ‘reasonable’ care was taken as Best Travel checked that the
glass met Greek standards. There was no need for the hotel to comply with UK
standards as Greece have their own rules which were met by the hotel.
Mr Coleman will be protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, under s.49.
The trader who completed his driveway didn’t take ‘reasonable care and skill’
in the service he provided to Mr C. This is shown by the paving work being
done to a bad standard, causing the surface to become very uneven and
unsafe within a fortnight of completion. If ‘reasonable care and skill’ had been
applied effectively by the trader this wouldn’t have occurred, a paved driveway
can last anything between 12 and 35 years, not 14 days! Also, the trader has
clearly not complied with relevant industry standards of health and safety. The
finished job seems to not reach health and safety standards, with being
uneven and therefore unsafe. Mr C an elderly man could easily trip and fall
causing personal injury from the businesses lack of care, which could lead to a
bigger court case and compensation claim (Consumer Protection Act 1987).
Taking into consideration that Mr C paid £1000 just for labour it’s expected (as
an implied term) from the justifiable amount paid that he would receive a good
service.
2
, Lauren Cleveland
Miss Miller will also be protected by s.49 because reasonable care and skill
wasn’t taken in dying her hair. If the trainee hairdresser done a strand test,
which is an industry standard, Miss Miller’s hair could’ve been prevented from
turning green, as the strand test would’ve presented this colour in the first
place. Miss M’s situation could be argued to demonstrate the saying “you pay
for what you get”. The fact that this happened at a new salon and by a trainee
will be took into account. From attending a new salon and receiving a service
from a trainee, it is expected that a consumer may not receive the same
‘luxury’ service as if they attended a five-star salon. However, reasonable care
and skill is expected, as an implied term with any service at any salon. No
consumer enters a salon with the hope they’ll leave with an unintended wonky
haircut or incorrect colour. Reasonable care and skill was also not taken when
selecting what branded hair colorant products the salon stocked and used on
customers. Which makes Miss Miller also protected by s.4 SOGSA, because
through her service, goods, being the hair colourant, were supplied. The hair
dye may be seen as ‘unsatisfactory quality’ (s.9) as it didn’t fulfil the job
intended.
Consumers can also make a claim under section 4 of the Supply of Goods and
Services Act 1982; even though it was made before the CRA 2015, it still
stands. Stating that if goods are supplied with the service there is an additional
implied term that says the goods must be of ‘satisfactory quality’, which links
to s.9 CRA 2015. This section only applies to people who are being supplied
goods as well as services.
Mr Coleman may potentially be protected by s.4 of SOGA because through his
service goods were supplied. It may be that the materials (goods) sourced by
the business and used to pave his driveway were not of ‘satisfactory quality’.
This may have caused the driveway to be uneven and unsafe. Although the
issues occurred could be down to poor labour and lack of ‘reasonable care and
skill’.
S.51 Reasonable Price
If the price of the service hasn’t been stated in the contract then there is an
CRA implied term that the buyer only has to pay a ‘reasonable’ price, however,
what a ‘reasonable’ price is, is not defined. Which makes it hard to argue what
a reasonable price to pay would be, this would also vary depending on the
service being provided e.g. how complicated the job was/how long it took. If a
3
