Marketing and Consumer Law Between Consumers and Suppliers

MAIN BODY

Niblett ltd v Confectioners Materials Co ltd 1921 3 KB 387.

Case Scenario of the case: It was the case that has taken place between Niblett ltd and Confectioners Materials Co. Ltd. Here, Niblett Ltd had given condensed mike where they had marked wrong labels. Looking at the wrong labels on 1000 tins, Nestle had indicated that if they will remove the label from it before selling then legal action will be taken against them.

Detail discussion on the case:It was one of the landmark cases for understanding the concept of consumer law (Arsel, Eräranta, and Moisander, 2015). The case has been explained in a systematic process where a different trademark has been used by Niblett Ltd. The tin of condensed milk was labelled wrongly. As per the terms and conditions of Consumers Law, any of the business organizations need to understand that they are not allowed to copy the trademark sign of any of the other organizations. If in case, it has been done by the seller then in that respective situation, rights are given to the suppliers to take legal action against them. In the above-given case, the same has been where the wrong logo on condensed milk was provided by Confectioners Materials Co. Ltd.

In the context of the case, the whole of the case has revolved around Niblett Ltd, Confectioners Material Co. Ltd, and Nestle Co. The case was mainly started from the time when Nestle found that the wrong trademark is being used by Niblett to sell the tin of Condensed milk. To remove the overall effect of the case, the organization like Niblett Ltd needed to inform about the changes required within the labels (Wells, 2014). 

Gerson v OHIM(T-201/06),is one of the landmark cases, where it was said that any of the organization doesn't get the right to use any of the similar forms of trademark sign. The judges of the case explained that any of the similar forms of trademark sign can create confusion within the minds of customers which may have a direct impact on overall performance of the organization who has registered the original sign for their business association (Niblett v Confectioners' Material [1921] 3 KB 387, 2018).

In this respective case, the judges of the case considered one of the landmark cases which was Monforts v Marsden which was quite similar to this respective case. The main authority to declare the decision on this respective decision has been given to Bailhache J who is one of the senior judges who has handled the number of cases related to Consumer Protection.

Several issues have raised within the case and it is important to understand that all of the work must be conducted accordingly. Here, in this case, the judges found that the organization has not complied with the rules and regulations of Section 13 of SOGA. According to this respective law, any of the organizations must sell the product which they had to advertise but this was the case where trademark used upon the tin of condensed milk was not similar to the milk product which has been given by Confectioners Materials Co ltd to Niblett Ltd.

The case just didn't start here because Nestle had informed to change the label of tin but it was Confectioners Materials who denied to bring any of the changes within the tin. It was one of the reasons which forced Niblett to take legal action against Confectioners Materials Co. Ltd because they had to suffer from a huge amount of loss (Pappas, 2016). Besides, they were not able to deliver the product within the market, which has a direct impact on the overall goodwill of the organization.

The judgement of the case: To declare result within the respective case, the judges of justice court has to overview the different case where similarity can be seen. It is necessary because it allows making the terms and conditions of the case much easier. Besides, different legislation has been used with the case, such as Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation 2008, The Control Misleading Advertising Regulations 1988, The Trade Description Act 1986 as well as The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Delafrooz, Taleghani, and Nouri, 2014). These were some of the legislation which was used by the judges of Justice court. To declare the judgement in this respective case, Monforts v Marsden was the case which was referred but later on it was found that this is a quite different case because here the case was reviewed in the favor Confectioners' Material Ltd. But, according to the law and regulation, it can be easily reviewed that any of the organization do not have the right to sale any of the product which is of those trademarks which have been not registered by the company.

The final judgement which was given in this respective case was in the favour of Nitblett where charges were imposed upon the business organization. Also, judges explained that in any of the situations the seller is not allowed to sell those goods were appropriate trademark has been not used. Also, the buyer (Niblett ltd) was entitled to repudiate the contract and claim for the damages. Need Assignment Samples?Talk to our Experts!

CONCLUSION

From the above-discussed case, it can be concluded consumer law is one of the crucial law which provides the number of benefits to its customers. It simple words, it can be said that consumer law and trademark law don't allow any person to cheat by copying a similar trademark sign or logo. Besides, if any of the organizations do the same then legal action can be taken.

PART 2

INTRODUCTION

Consumer law is all about delivering the rights and benefits to buyers and sellers so that commercial activity can be conducted successfully. It is mandatory for each and every person to follow the guidelines of consumers law. Looking at the guidelines of this respective law, it will be important to solve the given case study where fraudulent activity has been performed.

MAIN BODY

Case Scenario: The case was connected with Angus and the local car showroom. Here, in this respective case, Angus was willing to purchase the car where he decided to visit the nearest car shop. Angus spots a beautiful red colour sports car. He tried to collect detail information about the car where it was found that there are no legal documents for this respective car and it has been purchased on good faith. Also, Angus decided to purchase the car by changing the seat cover to red colour which may allow it to look more funky. Once the car was purchased, within the next few days the seat cover started to unravel and it also split at the seams (Fejős, 2019). Besides, the local police station informed about the car as it was stolen from its previous owner and the police is telling him to return the car to the previous owner. Looking at the situation, Angus contacts the car showroom who informed that they are under no obligation regarding the car that where they are stocked. Also, seat cover was manufactured from one of the China-based company so if any problem occurs he should contact them.

Issues: The main issue within this respective case is that Angus was not aware of any of the car which he had purchased. Also, now he is in a situation where he is not able to decide whether he must give a car to the real owner or not because the owner of the car showroom has explained that he doesn't have any of the obligation to check about the stock of car. Also, the another issue from which Angus is suffering is related with new seat cover which he has placed in the car The situation of seat cover is quite similar with (Henry Kendall & Sons v William Liffico & sons Ltd 1969 2 AC 31) where the product which has been purchased was not pleasant for use. As he has purchased the seat covered from Car showroom but later on he explained that for any of the inconvenience he must contact with seat manufacturing company. Want to get Assignment writing service? Talk Our Expert Now!

Rules: After having a detailed analysis of the case scenario and law, it is necessary to have detailed knowledge regarding Consumer Protection Act 2015. It is the law which clarifies about all of the important topics which can allow deciding what are the rights of buyer and seller in any of the circumstances. Consumer Right Act 2015, gives several rights and remedies to buyers (Helberger, 2016). It is one of the law which can give power to the buyer in that situation where any of the fraudulent activity has been conducted with them. The main purpose of the formation of this respective law was to reduce the chances of unfair terms and conditions which are mainly included at the time of purchasing any of the products from buyers. According to consumer law, misrepresentation is of three types and they are.

• The chances of fraudulent misrepresentation occur only in that respective situation where the seller is well known about the statement. In these respective circumstances, their statements are untrue and this is mainly done to earn the personal profit. This is one of those situations where a buyer gets the right to prove that the contract is void and also damages can be claimed in these types of situations.
• The situation of negligent misrepresentation occurs in a situation where one party fails to take proper care at the time of entering into the contract or statement. Here, it is necessary to understand that duty of care is applicable and any of the contracts must be formed after systematically analyzing every aspect. Before damages did not provide in these types of misrepresentation but changes have been made within the law and now rewards are given for misrepresentation (Malala, 2018).

There is the number of laws and regulation which is applicable according to the given criteria. According to Trade Description Act 1986, it can be identified that any of the business organizations must understand that the product which they are going to sold must be similar to the description which they have given to the client. In any of the circumstances, that is not be done then legal action can be taken against the seller (Hill, Canniford and Mol, 2014). Also, as per Consumer Protection Law, whenever any of the cars are ready for sale the car dealer must display on the car having the label mentioning the sale of the vehicle. Also, a contract should be prepared regarding the sale of the product.

According to the Sales of Goods Act, section 14(2) states that there are certain rules and regulations which are needed to be identified by the seller and buyer at the time of entering into the contract for sale and purchase. Here, the buyer is required to specify the product which they are selling where must clarify if any of the products contain any of the defects or not. Also, the buyer has equal responsibility in it where they are needed to identify the product whether they are in the state of buying or not. Also, if any of the sales have been made by sample test in then that respective situation section 14(2c)(c) explains that the seller will not be held liable for any damages (Howells, 2016).

Application: After having a detailed analysis of the case, it has been found that there are several cases which is one similar situation. The law says that the owner of a car showroom was not active towards their work. It was his duty to have collect detail knowledge regarding the vehicle which he is selling to the business organization. Also, the seller was not well aware of the statement which he was giving to the buyer as he didn't have any of the knowledge regarding the product and services. It was necessary according to that laws and regulations that the seller must have detailed knowledge regarding the car and its previous owner.

In the case of seat cover of the car which has been replaced by the seller, it is the responsibility to know whether it is of saleable quality or not. If the seller is selling those products where they are unaware of its quality then they must have informed the client that once the product is sold there will not be any of the liability (Kerber, 2016). But, in this respective situation, the owner of the car showroom denied every factor related to the seat cover. Ask for management assignment help from our professional experts!

Conclusion: From the detail analysis on the file, it can be simply understood that it was the responsibility of car seller that proper documentation should have been done. Here, it will be important for Angus that he must return the car to its real owner because it was the order given by the nearest police station. It is because the original documentation are still available with first owner. Then, Angus will have the option to file the case against owner of car showroom because he has done misrepresentation at the time of selling the car. Here, damages are to be paid to Angus by car showroom owner because its their responsibility to have a detail knowledge regarding the product which they are going to sell in future period of time.

CONCLUSION

From this respective part, it can be concluded that consumer law is one of the important topic as it gives rights and responsibilities to buyer and seller. Consumer law gives power to sue buyer in those circumstances where they tries to misrepresent and sell the product. Consumer law explains that chances of negligence misrepresentation occurs only in those respective situation where buyer is unaware at the time of selling the product within the market. In simple words, consumer protection law helps to protect right where it doesn't allow to conduct any of the unlawful activity.

Read Also - Management of Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit