Read Case study of A and others v The National Blood Authority and Essay

Read Case study of A and others v The study stemma trust and others 2001 3 All ER 289. Have looks since this decision de - Essay ExampleIndeed, the case of A and others v bailiwick Blood way and another became a landmark and certainly the first case in UK for existence the first case in UK to succeed against the producer of a medical crossway. The Consumer Protection Act arising from this case certainly gained much footing and has since remained relatively unchanged with time. However, several other cases seem to enforce preferably than change consumer law in UK. It is worth noting, however, that the case of A and others v National Blood Authority and another gained strong ground based on the fact that consumer protection was viewed from what the consumers are entitled to judge as opposed to the reasonable ability of the producer in delivering safe products. In the case of Worsley v Tambrands Ltd, Worsley argued that tampons manufactured by Tambrands were defective since t he manufacturer did not provide clear warnings regarding the risk of toxic nose candy syndrome. However, this argument was rejected by the court based on the argument that defectiveness of products is based on minimum standards (Howells and Weatherill 241-243). Therefore, the developments of Worsley v Tambrands Ltds case only affirmed the basis of consumer protection Act real from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. One of the most recent cases BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) 2011 seemed to bring a new twist to consumer protection Act. In this case, the important part to be put into consideration is the obligation of the manufacturer to furnish the aimr with adequate instruction concerning the use and compatibility of a product (Bicknell web). However, this case seems to strengthen rather than change the provisions arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. The court ruling seemed to underpin the obligation of the ma nufacturer to provide adequate information on use of products. This had already been coined in the earlier case A and others v National Blood Authority and another. Another, yet very recent case, Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and security Plc 2011 also mirrored the already established consumer protection Act. According to the, the purchasers arguments CO2 fire suppression system they had purchased for their popcorn machinery in the manufacturing plant was not fit for purpose. According to the case ruling, they failed to adequately notify the supplier of the intended use of the product they purchased and therefore, they could not have relied upon the suppliers technical skills and reasonable judgment (Bailii web). However, a more kindle case IdevATB Sales Ltd (2007), provided a deeper mirror on consumer protection Act. From the case proceedings, the Judge posited that endure cracking was a probable cause of the fracture leading to the accident of the victim. However , proof of failure of the product during normal use had to be supplied adequately (Sweet and Maxwell web). The ruling in this case did not truly change any aspect of consumer protection Act arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another but to the contrary, only seemed to coin what had already been put forward. However, there seemed to be a