header-logo header-logo

LC issues sales warning

14 April 2011
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Aggressive or misleading trading acts to be outlawed

Proposals to tackle scams, rip-offs, and misleading and aggressive trading practices have been put forward by the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission.

Common unscrupulous practices range from demands for parking fines that were never owed to fake “wins” and “free” goods that are not free.

Unscrupulous doorstep traders selling mobility aids to housebound people were found to have inflated prices by as much as 400%.

The commissioners say that, while many high-pressure sales tactics are a criminal offence, there is no clear route to redress. Whether duped, intimidated or misled, consumers have little chance of either getting their money back or stopping the wrongful practice.

In its consultation paper, Consumer Redress for Misleading and Aggressive Practices, published this week, the commissioners recommend a new Consumer Act which would cover aggressive or misleading trading acts between businesses and consumers.

The proposed Act would give consumers the right to: “unwind” a transaction, return the item and get a refund within three months; claim a discount where unwinding is not possible; and claim extra losses, such as distress and inconvenience (accompanied by a defence of due diligence).

Law Commissioner, David Hertzell, said: “When we buy goods that are faulty, we know we can get our money back. But when we’re misled about a product or fall victim to high-pressured sales tactics or aggressive demands for money, it’s unclear what remedies are available to us. The Law Commission believes consumers should have a clear right to redress for misleading and aggressive commercial practices.”

He added: “Simplifying the law will give more confidence to consumers and help drive rogue traders out of the market place, where currently they damage the reputation and livelihood of good, honest businesses.”

The consultation closes on 12 July 2011.

Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll