Consumer Protection in UK Law

A literal reading of Regulation 6(3)(a) and its equivalent in Article 7.1 of the UCPD might suggest that something approaching an utmost good faith obligation is imposed in relation not merely to the consumer's decision whether to contract, but also to every transactional decision, such as, in the present case, a decision whether to respond to a promotion by post, text message or premium rate telephone call. In my judgment the key to understanding this paragraph is the concept of "need".

As to the proper construction of s.14(2), given the clear view which I have formed, I do not consider it right to displace that construction simply to achieve harmony with a decision upon the meaning of s.12 of the UCTA 1977. S.14(2) as amended by SG(IT)A 1973 was itself a piece of consumer protection intended to afford wider protection to a buyer than that provided in the 1893 Act.

Consumer protection, which is the purpose of statutes of this kind, is achieved only if the occurrence of the prohibited acts or omissions is prevented. It is the deterrent effect of penal provisions which protects the consumer from the loss he would sustain if the offence were committed. If it is committed he does not receive the amount of any fine. As a taxpayer he will bear part of the expense of maintaining a convicted offender in prison.

But this rational and moral justification does not extend to penalizing an employer or principal who has done everything that he can reasonably be expected to do by supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to control or influence, to prevent the commission of the offence (see Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160, 174; Sweet v. Parsley [1970] A.C. 132, 163).

The doctrine of undue influence has been sufficiently developed not to need the support of a principle which by its formulation in the language of the law of contract is not appropriate to cover transactions of gift where there is no bargain. The fact of an unequal bargain will, of course, be a relevant feature in some cases of undue influence. I doubt whether the courts should assume the burden of formulating further restrictions.