The liability to consumers of manufacturers of defective goods — An Australian perspective

Abstract

There is an increasing tendency for consumers to regard the manufacturer as being primarily responsible for the safety and quality of consumer goods, even though in many if not most legal systems the common assumption by the consumer that the manufacturer rather than the retailer bears the primary liability for defective goods is not in fact correct. The legal position of the consumer in Australia under the general law of contract and tort is outlined as a background to the reforms made in 1978 by an important amendment to the Federal Trade Practices Act. A manufacturer (or importer) of consumer goods now is bound by statutory obligations, enforceable by the consumer, in respect of the quality of his goods. He is also bound by any express warranty given by him, and is liable where the goods require to be repaired or where replacement parts are required, but repair facilities or spare parts are not reasonably available. Except in the case of the obligations relating to the provision of spare parts and repair facilities, the manufacturer's statutory obligations cannot be excluded or limited. The Act also contains provisions limiting the time during which a consumer can commence an action against a manufacturer. Although the author considers that there are some defects in the legislation, he concludes that it represents a significant advance in the legal protection of the consumer's economic interests. There is a need for the expansion of existing mechanisms for the informal resolution of consumer claims, but the author also believes that the existence of the new legislative code setting out reasonably clearly defined rights will often in practice greatly strengthen the position of government agencies and others in attempting to negotiate a settlement on behalf of a consumer. Damages recoverable by a consumer from a manufacturer extend to consequential losses, including death or personal injury. As a result, a measure of strict liability for personal injury caused by defective products has been imposed on manufacturers. The legislation does not, however, offer a comprehensive regime of strict liability for personal injury and many anomalous situations will arise. The author considers that there is therefore a need in Australia for a review of the whole question of strict liability for personal injury caused by defective products, although even were this to occur there would still exist a strong need for a scheme such as that discussed in the article to govern the claim of a consumer for economic losses caused by the supply of defective or inferior products.