Timing: 00:00:00
You are acting for a defendant in a claim brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The defendant has provided several explanations for why he should not be liable for any damage suffered. These include: i) A defence that the defendant has manufactured a component part of a product. The defendant alleges that the defect exists in a subsequent product and the defect was only partly attributable to the design of the subsequent product. ii) A defence that the claim was brought more than three years after the product was put into circulation. iii) A defence that the goods were stolen and never supplied by the defendant.
Which of the following would prove to be the best defence to the claim?
< Previous
T/F
Next >
Option C is the correct answer. A is not the best defence as it states the defect being only partly attributable to the design; if it had been wholly attributable, this would have been a better defence: s.4(1)(f)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. B is incorrect as the three-year limitation period relates to the date of the damage or when the claimant knew of the damage: s.11A(4) of the Limitation Act 1980. C is correct as it would represent a situation under s.4(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where a defendant has not supplied the product.
Key Point: Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a defendant is not liable for damages if they did not supply the product. This includes instances where the goods were stolen and never supplied by the defendant.
Collect Question
userContent
