The Unacceptable Face of the Consumer Guarantees Bill
| Date | 01 July 1991 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1991.tb00906.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1991 |
REPORTS
The Unacceptable Face
of
the Consumer Guarantees
Bill
Chris
Willett
*
Introduction
Commentators often talk metaphorically of the ends and means of legal rules. They
will
characterise rules as being designed to achieve certain tasks or ‘law-jobs.’I A
focus is thereby provided for assessing
why
the job is being performed, the virtue
of the end product and the difficulties which
will
be encountered
in
attaining
it.
This note draws attention to the Consumer Guarantees
Bill
19902
(introduced as
a Private Member’s Bill by Martyn Jones MP), and the different ‘law-jobs’ contained
in
it.
The
Bill
sought to enact:
(1)
the National Consumer Council (NCC) proposals to introduce a ‘consumer
guarantee,’ which would,
in
certain circumstances, impose repair and refund
obligations on manufacturers of defective products;
(2)
the Law Commissions’ suggested clarificatory reforms of the obligations as
to quality owed by retailers under the Sale of Goods Act
1979
(SGA).4
The NCC proposal would re-conceptualise the legal and economic relationship
between consumers and manufacturers
with
the intention of enhancing product quality
and competiti~n.~ This would be achieved not only by giving consumers
locus
stundi
in respect of manufacturers, but by legislating for the factors which typically
retard the bargaining strength of a consumer
in
relations with commercial interests.
The Law Commissions’ proposals do not address these inequalities of bargaining
strength, assuming a relationship which requires no more than tinkering reform,
within a traditional private law framework. This note suggests that an important
reason for the Bill’s failure was that the Government made a similar assumption
and could not accept the legitimacy of a ‘law-job’ which recognised the weak
bargaining position of the consumer. The note first examines the consumer guarantee
and the job it seeks to execute, and then examines the Law Commissions’ proposals
in
the same light. Finally, we examine the political and industrial response to these
divergent aims and suggest that the negative political response to the consumer
guarantee makes it unlikely that it, or any provisions presently accompanying
it,
will
become
law.
~~ ~
*Dcpartmcnt
of
Law,
Brunel
University.
I
2
Bill
16,
1989-90.
3
4
5
See
Adaiiis
and Brownsword. ‘Law Reform, Law Jobs
and
Law Coiiiniission
No
160’
(1988)
51
MLR 48
I.
Ciii 137 (London: NCC, 1989).
Sdc
cord
Supp/y
of
Goods
(Law
Con1
No
160;
Scot
Law
Con1
No
104)
Cm
137, 1987.
See
the
explanation
of
the
Bill‘s
objectives given by Muvtyii
Jones
MP
at
the
otil~et
of
Ihc
Sccond
Rcading,
HC
Dcb
vol
165, col 1171-74
UI
1172.
26
January
1990.
552
The
Moclerti
Lmv
Review
54:4
July
1991
0026-7961
To continue reading
Request your trial