Deceptive/ Unfair Trade Practices
Deceptive Trade Practices and Tort Liability
Authored by :-
RESEARCH QUESTION
• What is the Scope and extent of liability in tort regarding deceptive trade practices undertaken by persons and what are the means of redressal for the same ?
• Whether the current status of development of liability in tort regarding fraudulent trade practices and awareness about the aforesaid is sufficient for adequate and timely redressal to consumers ?
INDEX
• Deceptive Trade Practices – An Introduction.
• Breach of duty of care by the Tortfeasor.
• Important cases relating to Deceptive Trade Practices.
• Extent of damages.
• Redressal by statues and its effect on the quantum of tort suits filed.
• General conclusion.
Ch. 1 - DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES – AN INTRODUCTION
To understand deceptive trade practices and tortuous liability we have to break down the tort and understand the concept of deceit. Deceit in general terms would be “to cheat”. But understanding the independent tort f deceit would give us the basement to understand deceptive trade practices.
Deceit- historically the writ of deceit was available in narrowly defined circumstances involving abuse of process of the court. However, by the end 18th century , a more general tort of deceit had emerged in which liability was based on fraudulent misrepresentation had been made available to the claimant, inducing detrimental reliance. The making of representation which a party knows to be untrue and which is intended to induce another to act on the faith of it, so that he may incur damage, is a fraud.
The tort of deceit dates back to the case of Derry v. Peek[1] where Lord Herschell laid down “first in order to sustain an order of deceit there must be proof of fraud and nothing short of it would suffice. Secondly, fraud is proved
Authored by :-
RESEARCH QUESTION
• What is the Scope and extent of liability in tort regarding deceptive trade practices undertaken by persons and what are the means of redressal for the same ?
• Whether the current status of development of liability in tort regarding fraudulent trade practices and awareness about the aforesaid is sufficient for adequate and timely redressal to consumers ?
INDEX
• Deceptive Trade Practices – An Introduction.
• Breach of duty of care by the Tortfeasor.
• Important cases relating to Deceptive Trade Practices.
• Extent of damages.
• Redressal by statues and its effect on the quantum of tort suits filed.
• General conclusion.
Ch. 1 - DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES – AN INTRODUCTION
To understand deceptive trade practices and tortuous liability we have to break down the tort and understand the concept of deceit. Deceit in general terms would be “to cheat”. But understanding the independent tort f deceit would give us the basement to understand deceptive trade practices.
Deceit- historically the writ of deceit was available in narrowly defined circumstances involving abuse of process of the court. However, by the end 18th century , a more general tort of deceit had emerged in which liability was based on fraudulent misrepresentation had been made available to the claimant, inducing detrimental reliance. The making of representation which a party knows to be untrue and which is intended to induce another to act on the faith of it, so that he may incur damage, is a fraud.
The tort of deceit dates back to the case of Derry v. Peek[1] where Lord Herschell laid down “first in order to sustain an order of deceit there must be proof of fraud and nothing short of it would suffice. Secondly, fraud is proved
Bibliography: Statutes Consumer Protection is by Unfair Trading Regulations, 2008. Competition act,2002 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ----------------------- [1] (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337 [2] Derry v. peek (1889) App. Cas. 337. [5] H Black, Black’s Law Dictionary 470 (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1990) [6] 165 Ind [7] (1853) 2 B1. & B1. 216. [9] Derry v Peek [1889] 14 App Cas 337, HL [10] Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 [15] (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 360 [16] Gordon v selico (1984) 275 E.G [24] Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 W.L.R 29 [25] (1842) 6 Beav [26] trader as effectively defined in sec. 2(q), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [27] supra – 909. [33] (1914) 31 R.P.C. [36] (1914) 31 R.P.C. [39] І (2006) CPJ 32 NC. [48] 2003 VIIIAD Delhi 228, 108 (2003) DLT 51 [49] 101 (2002) DLT 359, 2003 (26) PTC 1 Del [50] Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, Sweet & Maxwell(18th ed. 2010), 545 [51] [1995] 2 AC 145 [56] Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, Sweet & Maxwell(18th ed. 2010) [57] Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 Q.B [58] Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, Sweet & Maxwell(18th ed. 2010), 665 [59] Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, Sweet & Maxwell(18th ed [61] N. R.Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714 [62] http://www.majmudarindia.com/pdf/Protection%20of%20unregistered%20trademark.pdf [63] Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, Sweet & Maxwell(18th ed. 2010), 921 [64] ibid. [66] Baxter v Ford Motor Co. 12 P.2d 409 (Wash., 1932) [67] Harper, James and Gray, Harper, James and Gray on torts, Aspen (3rd ed