LAW 2114/2050 Consumers and the Law Assignment Sample

• Subject Code : LAW-2114-2050
• University : Middlesex University My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Consumer Law

European Criminal Law

Issue

Whether the super travel company is liable for any criminal act or the incidence which has occurred with torch can be considered as means reus or actus reus by the company.

Relevant Law

The criminal law is used in mainly three major areas such as parents for the reduction of truancy by their children, targeting employers to decrease the employment of workers and business to enhance the facilities given by the safety of consumers or buyers. If there is a contribution of the consumer protections act 1987 towards the high protection of consumer from malpractice or from harmful products (Mitsilegas, 2019). There are some offences and defences in the consumer protection act, 1987. The act made it is an offence to supply of consumer goods that are harmful for the consumer and did not give safety to the consumer, having regard to all the circumstances, where safe meant that there was no harm or harm is reaching to the minimum. The offence can be met with a sentence of imprisonment which is exceeded up to six months. The main offences are as follows:

There are some which are being mentioned in the European criminal law about the consumer that if any good which is supplied or given to the consumer and harms the individual’s general safety then it will be considered as crime. Moreover, if any person provides, sells and convinced to sale such goods that can harm the general safety of the consumers. Then this would be termed as law in accordance with law. Further, the exposing or proposing harmful products is also crime. It is considered as strict liability offence but the offence is made subject to two major kinds of defence. The first is the above stated points, some of these are found in section 10 (3). This section highlights the consequences of general safety products: anything which is shown to be attributable to any compliance with any requirement imposed by or under any circumstances or with any community obligation (Mitsilegas, 2019).

If any supplier fails to follows these norms they are as follows:

• Any safety regulations which are imposed requirement with respect to that matter.

• Any standards of safety which is approved for the various purposes of this sub section by or under any such regulations and imposing requirements with respect to that matter.

• The provision of any enactment or subordinate legislations which are imposing such requirements with regards to such matter by any such regulations. There is also a general defence has been provided under section 10 (4) (b) (ii) that supplied the goods or offered to supply them, if any person not known to the facts or not having reasonable grounds for believing that the goods failed to meet with general safety requirement. According to section 39 of this act provides that: it states that all the offences which have been stated above are liable for committed that act and also gives defence to that person to whom the crime has been committed. Basically European criminal law prohibits the commercial malpractices and protects the consumer from using harmful products which may endangers the life of the consumer.

Means Rea and Actus Reus

Basically the liability of criminal law is based on Mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea means Guilty mind and actus reus means guilty act. Basically these two concepts has been evolved to remove the guilty act and guilty notions, thoughts and ideas. For constituting the criminal offence it is important that these two concepts must be counted, it will assist in proving the crime and intend of doing that crime (Satzger 2017). It is voluntary act which is done by any individual then it would be considered as a criminal offence.

There are cases which describes about the means rea and actus reus application in the crime so that the crime can be easily identified. In case of actus reus the intent of doing crime is not possible prove strict liability crime. There two terms this defines state of mind that is specific and general intent. Therefore, both are the most important elements of crime. It also has a very famous latin term actus non facit reum nisi mean sit rea, that means an act cannot be called guilty unless his mind is also guilty (Satzger 2017).

The cases are as follows:

M’ Naghten’s case (1843), has explained that the person who is insane is excused only if he does not know the nature and quality of his act or could not tell right from wrong. Basically these are the points which are being explained and will applicable to show the liability of super travel. In preceding section it will be explained that whether the company is liable for the consequences happens with Joanna, Sarita and Amara (Mackie, 2017).

Application to The Facts

According to the facts Sarita and Amara have shown trust on the company and but then they provided defects in the services which harmed their and Amara also informed about the services that they can injury from the company, but they stated that the services where were by them not sponsored by them and these services are provided by other supplier. However, all the suppliers are working in association with each other, so the company is liable. Even though they know that the supplier may create problems in relation to providing services.

The European criminal law states that: anything which infringes the general safety of the consumers can be liable for performing crime. Moreover, the company is fulfilling the concept of mens rea and provided norms regarding that, they are not checking the suppliers. Even though this can decrease their reputation and profit, so Amara and Sarita will be compensated. This act also fulfils the latin terms “actus non facit reum nisi mean sit rea” because without guilt mind it is not possible and it is natural that it will harm other person. This will create crime or offence under the provision of criminal law (Mackie, 2017).

Conclusion

Therefore, both the company the is fulfilling the concept of means rea and actus reus, these are the major components of the person and the facts of the case is also dragging on these concepts. Thus, the compensation will be given to the parties as mental injury is also counted in the aspects of criminal law. There are basically two types of injury mental injury and physical injury, though physical injury was not caused but it may caused due to their services provided by them. The mental injury has been caused by them.

Tort (U.K. civil law)

Issue

Whether the company is liable under tort law or consumer have the rights under tort law.

Relevant Law

Law of tort is civil wrong known for providing compensation to the injured part or aggrieved party. By granting compensation, the law of tort is principally worried about changing illegitimate civil activities. The irreconcilable circumstances will undoubtedly happen in a general public where men live respectively, and they can make harm either now and again. In addition, tortuous liability has come to be utilized against producers and mechanical units with fast industrialization. The Law of tort originated from Common Law, and all things considered, this part of law remains unmodified.

Tortuous liability has just been systematized to an exceptionally restricted degree, for example, labourer’s compensation, engine vehicle mishaps, natural debasement, buyer security, etc (ABBASI, 2018). The advancement of the buyer security system is very youthful and can be followed back to the privileges of the Bill of Consumers wherein the acknowledgment of shopper rights started at a universal level. This Bill recognized four significant buyer rights, specifically:

These consumer rights were additionally strengthened skipping of a goals by the UN General Assembly on 9 April 1985, in which general rules were given by the General Assembly of the United Nations which included: Physical wellbeing, security and advancement of consumer monetary rights, benchmarks for the security and nature of consumer products and enterprises, measures empowering consumers to get review, measures identifying with explicit zones like nourishment, water and pharmaceuticals; and Consumer training and data programs.

• There is one concept of negligence law: Duty of care: This denotes that a person or respondent is having some duty towards petitioner or to show some standard care to petitioner. In this concept the duty of company is to protect the public from injury but after taking all the measures also the injury has been caused.

• Breach of duty: If the respondent does not exercise the duty of taking reasonable care towards petitioner. This will also be considered as one of the factor of applying negligence to them (ABBASI, 2018).

• Cause in effect: In this concept the petitioner must proof that the injury has caused him due to respondent’s decision. This would also be considered as respondent’s decisions as they were working and the care must be taken about the public’s safety.

• Proximate cause: This cause related to the scope of a respondent’s accountability in a negligent case. The cause must foreseen, if the petitioner could not able to cause this thing then it might possible that the case may not consider as negligence (Fulbrook, 2019).

Damages: Petitioner must proof that the real damages has caused due to respondent’s way of doing work. The actual damages must be caused due to respondent’s actions (Fulbrook, 2019).

But this cannot be applicable on the company there is one concept which is very famous that is injuria sine danum and damun sine injuria. The injured party has signed all the terms and conditions so the company will not be liable. This cannot assume that company will be liable as they has taken all the facilities and lastly they are going to pursue these situations. But they were negligent towards the facilities which were provided to the consumers were not checked properly and efficiently. The grouped examination of the grounds of liability in tort was given by Pollock as under:

"Each tort is a demonstration or oversight (not being only the rupture of an obligation emerging out of an individual connection, or embraced by contract) which is connected in one of the following approaches to hurt (counting obstruction with a flat outright, regardless of whether there be quantifiable real harm or not), endured by a determinate individual: It might be a demonstration which, without lawful avocation or reason, is planned by the operator to cause hurt; and causes the mischief griped of. It might be a demonstration in itself as opposed to law, or an exclusion of explicit lawful obligation, which causes hurt not planned by the individual so acting or precluding (Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 2018).

It might be a demonstration damaging a flat outright (particularly rights of ownership or property), and treated as unfair regardless of the activity's aim or information. It might be a demonstration or exclusion causing hurt which the individual so acting or discarding didn't expect to cause, however, may and ought to with due tirelessness have anticipated and forestalled. From the consumer's perspective activities can lie under tort of double dealing, or upon rupture of obligation to take care for providing untrustworthy people with perilous articles. One can't close his eyes towards the chance of activity for the tort of rupture of statutory obligation that as well, where the consumer has been harmed by a flawed item secured by laws of the nation implied for his wellbeing and protection (Petty et al. 2019).

In any case, taking all things together such activities in torts the liability of a deficient item is essentially and comprehensively secured under the head of carelessness whether it might be carelessness of psyche or of direct or a careless demonstration itself (Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 2018). Liability for deficient item has been said to be not yet a rational idea or on the other hand our law. The current example of legitimate guidelines is an amalgam of agreement and tort and likewise of exacting liability and carelessness. It outfits plentiful protection to the consumer (purchaser) against a merchant than to the survivors of setbacks against the makers. The current conversation will base on the tort standards on item liability of makers and furthermore of the merchants in the chain, installers of inadequate items, suppliers of faulty and inadequate administrations.

Law of tort of England frames the premise of law of torts in India and henceforth it merits conversation and law of torts of America is worth talking about for there the acknowledgment of consumer torts is at the most developed stage. It might be applicable to make reference to here that there has not been a typical standard fundamental the protection given to the consumers in United Kingdom, United States of America, and India for the misfortunes endured by them. The American Law has tried different things with both agreement and tort answers. The German Law anyway has decided on legally binding arrangements. This principle is very well explained in the very famous case law Ryland v. Flecher (Petty et al. 2019).

Application

Law of tort will be applicable as they were negligent about the acts which were going on in the business or the whole travel agency. This creates the liability of the company to compensate in accordance with the act. This situation denotes the negligent act which was done by the company to such act these are factors related to it. The company does not have note to check details about the suppliers so that customer will not face any problem but the company was negligent towards doing this duty. Duty of care is one of the important elements which cover the whole concept of negligence knowing and doing then it is negligent act. Negligent act can be counted in any profession that is whether in business, or medical profession (Mackie, 2017).

Conclusion

In place of strict liability negligence based liability is being supported in England. The company is liable for the negligent act or services which are provided to the customers. The negligent simply means knowing any fact that it may cause harm to any other person. This will be called as the negligent act performed by the any individual, person, and association. The company knows that it may cause problem to the customers, moreover, they have not checked the things which are there with them. So it is important that the company must take care about things which can hurt people or customers. Hence the company or super travel will be liable for the act.

References

ABBASI, M. Conditions for the Liability of Negligence in Prenatal Diagnosis and How to Compensate by Complying with UK Law ‘(2018) 117 LQR 42, 64

Fulbrook, J, Outdoor activities, negligence and the law. (first published 2006 Routledge 2019) 268

Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law. Procedural Reform to the System of Expert Evidence in Medical Negligence Cases in Malaysia. (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2019) ch 5 Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2018) paras 3.12–3.17.

Klimek, L.. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in European criminal law.( Published by Springer, 2017).

Mackie, S. Is the Law in Relation to Negligence of the Police Satisfactory. Aberdeen Student (2017) L. Rev., 9, 1.

Martin, E.. New Literature in European Criminal Law. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CRIME, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ( 2019, 27, 83-88).

Mitsilegas, V. European criminal law after Brexit. In Criminal Law Forum ((2017,Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 219-250). Springer Netherlands.

Petty, T., Stephenson, L., Campbell, P., & Stephenson, T. Outcome Bias in Clinical Negligence Medico-legal Cases. Journal of law and medicine ‘ (2019) 26(4), 825-830.

Plunkett, J. The Duty of Care in Negligence. (Published in Bloomsbury Publishing London r 2018, 3rd edn, OUP).

Satzger, H. Current Developments and Problems of European Criminal Law. The Principle of Mutual Recognition in Times of Crisis–The New Jurisprudence on the European Arrest Warrant as an Example. Studi Urbinati, A-Scienze giuridiche, politiche ed economiche,( 2019, 69(3-4), 287-305).

Yektaei, S., & Suleimani, H. A. ROLE, RULES AND PLACE OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENTIONAL TORT AND NEGLIGENCE TORT IN TORT LAW. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, (2019) (3).

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Australian Consumer Law Assignment Help