3.4 - Consumer Rights Act implied terms and consumer remedies

Classifying The Consumer Contract

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 matters only after the basic route into the Act is established. In AQA contract scenarios, start by asking whether the contract is a trader-consumer contract and then whether the contract concerns goods, services, or both.

A shop, online retailer, professional repairer, installer, private tutor operating as a business, or delivery business will usually be a trader. A private person selling their own second-hand item once is much less likely to be a trader.

The classification controls the rule:

Do not rush this first step. AQA examiner commentary has repeatedly rewarded students who identify the trader-consumer relationship before applying the CRA, and it has criticised answers that assume the person using goods must automatically be the contracting consumer. If a gift, third party, agency or privity point appears, ask who actually made the contract before applying the CRA remedies.

The common confusion is thinking "consumer" means "ordinary person affected by the problem". In contract, the claimant usually needs a contractual route against the trader. If someone else bought the goods as a present, the buyer is plainly the consumer; the recipient may need a separate route such as the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 before using the buyer's contractual rights. That privity issue is not the main law in this lesson, but it is a frequent AQA trap.

Goods Terms: Sections 9, 10 And 11

For goods, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 implies minimum standards into the contract. The consumer does not have to prove that the trader expressly promised these standards. The statute treats them as part of the contract.

Section 9: satisfactory quality

Quality includes the goods' state and condition. For AQA application, focus especially on:

• fitness for the ordinary purposes for which goods of that kind are supplied
• appearance and finish
• freedom from minor defects
• safety
• durability

A new premium appliance with repeated faults is judged differently from a very cheap second-hand item sold with visible wear. Price, age, description and disclosed defects all matter. A defect specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract, or a defect that should have been revealed by the consumer's own pre-contract examination, may weaken a section 9 argument.

The case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd is useful as an illustration from the earlier sale of goods law that AQA accepts as relevant background. A new car with numerous defects was not of the expected quality even though it could still be driven. The legal tool is this: satisfactory quality is not limited to total uselessness. Appearance, finish, reliability and the reasonable expectations created by the transaction can matter.

Section 10: fitness for particular purpose

Section 10 implies a term that goods must be reasonably fit for a particular purpose made known to the trader before the contract is made. The purpose can be made known expressly or by implication.

Use this in two situations:

1. The consumer tells the trader a special purpose, such as needing paint suitable for a bathroom ceiling or shoes suitable for marathon training.
2. The purpose is so obvious from the type of goods that reliance on ordinary fitness is implicit, such as a kettle being able to boil water or a washing machine being able to wash clothes.

The trader may resist section 10 if the facts show the consumer did not rely on the trader's skill or judgement, or that it was unreasonable to rely on it. For example, if the consumer rejects clear advice and insists on buying unsuitable goods, the section 10 argument is weaker.

The case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a classic illustration of fitness for normal use. Clothing that caused a skin condition was not reasonably fit for its ordinary purpose. The case helps students remember that everyday use can be enough; the consumer does not always need an unusual purpose.

Section 11: goods to match description

Section 11 implies a term that goods must match their description. Description covers identifying words or characteristics that form part of the contractual description, such as "new", "cotton", a named model, a size, capacity, colour, or advertised specification.

Do not turn every defect into a section 11 breach. A scratched barbecue may still be a barbecue; a phone with a faulty battery may still match the model description. Those defects are usually better analysed under section 9, and sometimes section 10. Section 11 becomes stronger where the goods are not what they were described as being: for example, a "new" item is used, a "leather" bag is synthetic, or a "256GB" device has a materially lower capacity.

Goods Remedies: Reject, Repair Or Reduce

Once a consumer proves breach of section 9, 10 or 11, the next job is to choose the correct remedy. AQA rewards answers that understand the sequence of Consumer Rights Act remedies, not just a list of names.

Section 20: short-term right to reject

Section 20 gives a consumer a short-term right to reject goods that do not conform to the contract. In practice, the important exam point is the time limit: the short-term right is usually limited to 30 days, with the 30-day rule found in section 22. If the consumer validly rejects, the contract is treated as at an end and the consumer can claim a refund.

Use section 20 where the facts show the problem was discovered and acted on quickly. If the consumer waits for several weeks or months, do not automatically award rejection. Check whether the short-term period has expired, and then move to repair, replacement, price reduction or final rejection.

Section 23: repair or replacement

Section 23 gives the consumer the right to require the trader to repair or replace the goods. The trader must do this within a reasonable time, without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and bear the necessary costs.

This remedy is not unlimited. The consumer cannot insist on repair or replacement if the chosen option is impossible or disproportionate compared with the other option. A replacement may be disproportionate where a simple repair would fully cure a minor fault; repair may be unrealistic where the goods are fundamentally defective.

Section 24: price reduction or final right to reject

Section 24 provides the next stage: the right to a price reduction or a final right to reject. This normally becomes important where repair or replacement is impossible, not provided within a reasonable time, causes significant inconvenience, or has been attempted but the goods still do not conform.

A price reduction reduces what the consumer has to pay or produces a refund of an appropriate amount, up to the full price where justified. A final right to reject ends the contract after the earlier remedy route has failed or is unavailable. It is "final" because it sits later in the statutory sequence than the short-term right to reject.

AQA mark schemes also refer to a useful supporting rule in section 19: where goods fail to conform within the first six months after delivery, the failure is generally presumed to have existed at delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or the presumption is inconsistent with the nature of the goods or defect. This s19(14) presumption assists repair/replacement and price reduction/final rejection; it does not apply to the s20 short-term right to reject. For short-term rejection the consumer must establish non-conformity at delivery. It is a supporting proof point, not a separate headline remedy in the specification list.

The statutory remedies do not necessarily remove all common law remedies. AQA materials recognise that damages may still be relevant, for example for consequential loss caused by breach, provided there is no double recovery. Do not turn a CRA problem into a full damages essay unless the question asks for it, but do remember that ruined food, replacement costs or other losses may sometimes be legally relevant.

Services Terms And Remedies

For services, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 protects the consumer differently. A service is work or performance by the trader, so the law focuses on the standard and timing of that performance rather than the quality of a tangible item.

Section 49: reasonable care and skill

This is not a promise of perfection and not a guarantee of a successful result. The standard is about how the service is performed, judged against what a reasonable trader in that field should do.

Strong section 49 facts include careless work, failure to follow instructions, use of unsuitable methods, obvious mistakes, avoidable damage, or poor professional practice. Weak section 49 facts include a disappointing outcome where the trader acted carefully and the contract did not guarantee that outcome.

Thake v Maurice is a useful illustration from the pre-CRA law of services: a doctor was not liable simply because a sterilisation operation failed, where the issue was not lack of reasonable care but the absence of a guaranteed result. The legal tool is the distinction between reasonable care and absolute success.