- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
1) Which of the following TWO transactions would fall outside the scope of The Consumer
Rights Act 2015?A purchase of a washing machine from a department store which offers extended warranty
B A purchase of a second hand ring from a jewellery shop
C A free “app”
D A purchase of a unused toaster from a private seller at a car boot sale
How is the answer C and D? And not A and B. I don’t understand any option. Explain each please as to why or why not?2) What does an agreement to carry out an act which the law requires anyway amount to?
A Sufficient consideration
B Insufficient consideration
C Past consideration
Why is answer B? Not A?In reply to your first question, it’s important to know exactly what type of transaction IS covered by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 and thus what type of transaction is NOT covered.
The Act applies to consumer contracts where an entity, in the course of business, sells an item to someone acting not in the course of business.
The expression ‘sells an item’ suggests the item is sold in exchange for some form of consideration. The acquisition of a free app will therefore fall outside the coverage of the Act.
The car-boot purchase is a little bit more tricky. It could be argued that a car-boot sale is a sort of market at which people make offers to buy items that the car-booter is willing to sell. But is it a business?
On balance, my inclination would be to say ‘No, it’s not a business’ but if the only (or main) source of income for the car-booter is from car-boot sales then, yes, it could be claimed that the booter is in business and thus the item would be covered by the Act.
What is there not to understand about options A and B? I need your help on this to tell me exactly what it is about those two options that you don’t understand.
As for your second question, this is covered in my video lectures. Any action in accordance with a legal obligation is not sufficient to merit the title ‘consideration’.
On the other hand, any action OVER AND ABOVE a legal obligation IS sufficient to warrant the title ‘consideration’.
OK?
Re 1st question)
I still don’t understand why D does not fall under the Act?
Kaplan says it’s because he Dosen’t meet the definition of trader but why?Well, I believe that that is pretty much what I wrote in my original response. Is a car-boot event an open market and is our seller a regular attender at such events? Is this the seller’s main or only source of income? If so, I could argue that the car-boot seller is acting in the course of business.
But, if that’s not the case and this is a one-off car boot event that the seller has attended, then it would be difficult to argue that the seller is acting in the course of business. And, in that case, I don’t believe that the act would apply.
But in my earlier response, I started my answer with the words “The car-boot purchase is a little bit more tricky.”
And I stick with that comment!
OK?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.