wholly attributable to the design of the other product
or to compliance with instructions given by the pro-
ducer of the other product.
In addition to the defences provided by s 4, the per-
son proceeded against can raise contributory negligence
on the part of the injured party with a view to reducing
any award of damages (s 6(4)).
Exclusion or limitation of liability (s 7)
Section 7 provides that liability under the CPA 1987
cannot be limited or excluded by any contract term,
notice or any other provision.
Limitation of actions (Sch 1)
Schedule 1 to the CPA 1987 adds a new s 11A to the
Limitation Act 1980. Actions in respect of personal
injury and loss or damage to property must be brought
within three years from the date of the cause of action
accruing or the date of the claimant having knowledge
of the cause of action or of any previous owner having
such knowledge. The three-year limit may be extended
in the case of legal disability, fraud, concealment or
mistake. All claims are subject to a maximum limitation
period of ten years from the date of supply. A person
injured nine years after a product was supplied must
bring an action before the expiration of ten years and
cannot claim three years from the date of injury.
The ten-year time limit operates as an absolute bar to
proceedings.
Breach of statutory duty
The legal framework of protection for the public from
the hazards of unsafe goods is contained in the General
Product Safety Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1803) and
Part II of the CPA 1987 (see Chapter 12 ). This aim is
achieved in the following ways:
1 Creation of a criminal offence of supplying consumer
goods which fail to comply with the general safety
requirement.
2 Empowering the Secretary of State to make safety re-
gulations in respect of specific types of goods (failure
to comply with the regulations is a criminal offence).
3 Enabling the Secretary of State to take action in
respect of unsafe goods already on the market by
issuing prohibition notices, notices to warn and sus-
pension notices (it is a criminal offence to contravene
these instructions).
4 Providing a civil remedy for an individual consu-
mer who has suffered loss or damage as a result of
a trader’s failure to comply with safety regulations.
For example, a child who is injured by a toy which
contravenes the safety regulations will be able to sue
the manufacturer for breach of statutory duty. There
are two advantages to this kind of action: the child
can claim compensation even if he received the toy
as a gift, and he does not have to prove that the man-
ufacturer acted negligently.The criminal liability imposed by the General Product
Safety Regulations 2005 will be examined in more detail
in the next chapter.Defective services – generally
The law of negligence has an important application to
the provision of services. It opens up a remedy to those
who are strangers to the contract for services but never-
theless have suffered a loss as a result of the contractor’s
negligence. Thus, the principle established in Donoghue
v Stevenson(1932) applies not just to manufacturers but
also to repairers who carry out their work carelessly.
If a person is contracted to maintain and repair a lift,
for example, he owes a legal duty, quite separate from
his contractual obligations, to those using the lift to
exercise reasonable care in his work.
Liability for physical injury or damage caused by a
negligent act is well established. But what is the position
of a person whose job involves giving professional
advice? Clearly, he owes a duty to the person who has
engaged his services, but does it extend to others who
may have acted on his statements? In the last 40 years or
so, the courts have developed the Donoghuev Stevenson
principle to encompass negligent statements which cause
financial loss. Professional groups, such as solicitors,
accountants, bankers and surveyors, have felt the full
impact of the change in judicial attitudes in this area of
negligence liability. In this section, we will consider the
fast-developing area of law referred to as professional
negligence. Prior to 1963, it was generally accepted that,
in the absence of fraud, liability for making careless
statements which caused financial loss depended on the
existence of a contractual or fiduciary relationship be-
tween the parties. If the statement was made fraudul-
ently, the injured party could recover damages for thePart 3Business transactions