Right. I am confused by the development risks defence and the differences between s.4(1)(e) and the European Directive which it implements.
In my notes I have the following:
Section 4 (1)(e) CPA: “it is a defence for the producer to show that: “the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect”. Consider Abouzaid v Mothercare.
Directive: “Only if the producer can prove to the court that he took all the steps that a producer of products of that kind might reasonably have been expected to take, and that the state of scientific and technical knowledge would have allowed him to take, will this defence be of any value.”
The Directive test is both clearly objective and absolute. The test under the Act is certainly not absolute, since it appears to envisage different standards for different industries. The understanding of scientific and technical issues in a given industry may fall short of the knowledge actually in existence. The Directive catches this situation, but the Act clearly does not. It can also be argued that the Act allows at least some sort of cost/benefit analysis to be undertaken. The Commission took the view that this was defective implementation; however the ECJ rejected the complaint.
How does the test under the Act envisage different standards for different industries?! Both the Act and the Directive say "a producer of products of the same category" and "a producer of products of that kind".
I just don't understand the differences!
Turn on thread page Beta
Consumer Protection Act watch
- Thread Starter
- 22-05-2010 23:59
- 23-05-2010 12:50
This isn't for A Level is it?
- Thread Starter
- 23-05-2010 22:46
No it isn't, why?