EC4009 (The Corporate Environment) Assessment 3 (Law) Term 2

August 2017
Cover sheet

Student Identification Number ………………………

Submission Deadline: August 15 2017, no later than 3:00pm

WORD MARGIN: 1500 - 2000 (not including footnotes and bibliography). Please indicate the number
of words in the box below.

………… Words

Font size: 12
Line spacing: 1.5
Referencing: You must reference sources used in the body of your answer using the
Harvard method
Bibliography: Full bibliography at the end of the written work
Cases cited: In the body of the written work in bold with the full citation
e.g. Smith v Jones (2001) 2AER 19
Statutes cited: Use capitals for the name of the statute or legislation e.g. The General
Product Safety Regulations 2005. You may use an abbreviated form of the
title after the first citation e.g. The General Product Safety
Regulations 2005 (GPSR)
Sections of Sections of a statute may be quoted as follows:
Statutes: section 12 as S.12
section 12 paragraph/subsection 2 – as S.12(2)

Note:

• You must provide the information requested on this sheet and submit the sheet
together with your work on turnitin.
• You must submit your work via turnitin.
• You may lose marks if you do not follow these instructions.

PTO

EC4009 COURSEWORK JULY 2017 Page 1

EC4009 Assessment 3 Coursework

“The Tafel Actifry fryers”

Tafel, a manufacturer and supplier of electrical appliances launched a new product, the Tafel
Actifry fryer. Tafel says its shallow fryer cooks food that's low fat, is easy to clean, and they say,
'safe'. The Tafel Actifry costs about a £150 and more than 50,000 have been sold in the UK.

Peter Pryce bought four of them from Tafel, one for himself, one for his parents Daniel and
Sandra and two for other members of his family. Daniel and Sandra were particularly happy
because not only did it cook perfect chips, but were comforted by the safety features mentioned
by the company.

Daniel and Sandra used the fryer regularly each week, however four weeks after receiving the
fryer, when using it to cook some chips, sparks and smoke came out from the back of the fryer.
They thought perhaps it was a freak accident, but this was not the case. Before long, their son
Peter’s Actifry developed the same problem and actually caught fire in the middle of his kitchen.

Peter said: "I tried to switch it on and nothing happened, so I lifted the lid, and I noticed that the
heating element at the back of the unit was going from red to white hot. And the second it went
to white hot there was a flame that came out of the heating element, which then caused the
plastic around it to start to catch fire. And it was just giving off a very thick black smoke. You'd
expect better from a product manufactured by Tafel. I bought it because I felt it was safer than
frying chips in a pan on a stove, and yet I left it for just five or ten minutes, and it caught fire," he
says. Peter also received a minor injury to his hand.

Tafel says the Actifry is revolutionary, healthy and safe – “We accept that it may be possible for
a short-lived flame to appear inside the unit should any oil residue be on the heating element
casing. We reiterate that even if this did occur the product is still safe. The product will not catch
fire as it is made from 20 per cent fibreglass reinforced polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) which
is flame retardant."

Peter, Daniel and Sandra are naturally upset by the events.

You have been asked to give your legal advice on the issues. Using the IRAC structure/system you are
required to address the issues presented. You are reminded that you must refer to relevant legislation
and case law in your answers and to reference sources used.

PTO

EC4009 COURSEWORK JULY 2017 Page 2

Answer both questions
1. With regard to the Tafel Actifry fryers, explain to Peter Pryce, Daniel and Sandra whether
they have any rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In your answer, you are
required to refer to the relevant sections of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and relevant
case law. You should also consider what remedies are available.
(50 marks)

2. Assuming the Tafel shop where the purchase was made had included an exclusion clause
limiting liability, briefly explain whether the company could rely on this clause. If the case
against the company proceeds to court, explain which court is likely to hear the case.
(50 marks)

Please refer to assessment guidelines and IRAC in your module booklet.

END OF PAPER

EC4009 COURSEWORK JULY 2017 Page 3