These are the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and Unfair Contract Terms Act. In order to critically discuss how consumer law can protect the interest of the consumer, it is essential to analyze the case study.
Duck visited the showroom of Swan and looked at a television set priced at 500. He asked Swan about the set. Swan replied: "It's a beautiful model, never used, a snip at 500." In fact some of the internal wiring was not properly connected and the set had been switched on and used as a display unit in Swan's showroom for three days prior to Duck's visit.
In this situation, and according to the Trade Descriptions Act, Swan is subject to the criminal offence as the one who has provided his consumer with misleading information. According to the Act, the description to the consumer may be given verbally or in the written form, thus there is no possibility for Swan to be justified on the basis of the information having been given in the oral form (Budnitz, 2004). The Act makes the verbal statement, including misleading information, an offence and thus it is a criminal action. ...
However, there is also a question about what descriptions are to be supposed as trade under the act and is there any possibility for Swan to avoid penalty in this relation. The Act includes the following types of descriptions into the trade descriptions category:
quantity, gauge or size of the goods;
performance, strength and fitness for purpose, which means that the goods should be mechanically sound and unbreakable, etc.
In the situation described, it is clear that the misleading information provided by Swan, is included into the paragraph relating to the performance, strength of the TV set, and the fact that it must be mechanically sound. Thus, knowing the problem of the TV set and the wrong connections inside it, Swan has intentionally committed an offence and is subject to the penalties according to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. As far as it is known that the statement made is false, it is also supposed to be a criminal offence under the Act, and as Swan is not a simple employee but is supposed to be a manager, he can be sued and subjected to these penalties, however the Act presupposes that any person guilty of intentional or unintentional mislead bears responsibility under the law. The maximum penalty is equal to 5,000 per offence. This penalty is provided by the Magistrates' Court; as for the crown Court, the fine size is unlimited, while the person guilty of misleading the customer may acquire up to two years of imprisonment. It is possible that Swan may lose his consumer credit license, but according to the situation described it is supposed that he does not have this license, having an agreement with Chicken-Credit Ltd,