A Comparison of the Actions about Defective Products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Common Law Actions about Negligently Manufactured Products in the UKİngiltere'de 1987 Tarihli Tüketicinin Korunması Kanununa Göre Ayıplı Mallara İlişkin Açılan Davalarla İçtihat Hukukuna Göre İhmal Sonucu Üretilmiş Mallara İlişkin Açılan Davalar Arasında Bir Karşılaştırma

Öz

Under the early English case law, the buyer’s had no real protection against the defects in the product they bought. But, due to the developments in the English tort law, it was accepted that if the defendant had fault, then there was tort liability in respect of harm caused by a negligently manufactured product. Before 1985, the product liability laws in European Union Member States were different from each other and the differences were causing important difficulties to trade within EU. In order to solve these problems, the Directive on Products Liability 85/374/EEC was adopted in 1985. Unfortunately, the details of the Directive on Product Liability have been criticized heavily for some time. By allowing Member States to derogate from the Directive on some issues, a consensus was achieved. The Directive on Product Liability was adapted to English Law by the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The 1987 Act brings strict liability regime which is not dependent on the fact of the defectiveness of the products purchased. But the Act does not replace common law rules. So in English law, both strict liability and tortious liability can be used for defective products. It was thought that strict liability could bring a better protection for the consumers as there was no need to prove the fault of the defendant but subsequent cases showed that at some points, common law provides greater consumer protection than 1987 Act. Actually, an action for damages in respect of harm caused by a defective product under the 1987 Act differs very little from a common law action for damages in respect of harm caused by a negligently manufactured product

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

A Comparison of the Actions about Defective Products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Common Law Actions about Negligently Manufactured Products in the UKİngiltere'de 1987 Tarihli Tüketicinin Korunması Kanununa Göre Ayıplı Mallara İlişkin Açılan Davalarla İçtihat Hukukuna Göre İhmal Sonucu Üretilmiş Mallara İlişkin Açılan Davalar Arasında Bir Karşılaştırma

Öz

İngiliz içtihat hukukunun ilk zamanlarında, alıcıların satın almış oldukları ürünlerdeki ayıplara karşılık gerçek anlamda bir korumaları bulunmamaktaydı. Zaman içinde, İngiliz hukukundaki gelişmelere bağlı olarak, davalının kusuru bulunmak kaydıyla, ayıplı olarak üretilmiş mallar açısından, alıcının haksız fiil sorumluluğunun işletebileceği kabul edilmiştir. 1985’ten önce, Avrupa Birliği üye devletlerinin ürün sorumluluğu hukukları birbirlerinden farklı idi ve bu farklılıklar, Avrupa Birliği dahilindeki ticaret açısından önemli zorluklara yol açmaktaydı. İşte bu çeşit zorluklardan kaynaklanan problemleri çözmek için, 1985 yılında, Ürün Güvenliği hakkındaki Direktif 85/374/AET kabul edildi. Ne yazık ki, Ürün Güvenliği hakkındaki Direktifin içeriği ciddi eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Sonunda, üye devletlerin belli noktalarda Direktiften ayrılabilmesi, dolayısıyla da, iç hukuklarında daha fazla tüketici korunması sağlanmasının kabul edilmesiyle, söz konusu eleştiriler önemli ölçüde ortadan kaldırılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. ADAMS, John N.& MACQUEEN Hector: Atiyah’s Sale of Goods (12. Ed. Longman, 2010).
2. BURROWS, Paul: “Products Liability and the Control of Product Risk in the European Community” (1994), 10 Oxford Review of Economic Policy, I. 1, pp. 68-83.
3. CARDWELL, Kathleen: “Legislation- The Consumer Protection Act 1987” (1987), The Modern Law Review I. 5, pp. 614-622.
4. CLARK, Alistair: “The Consumer Protection Act 1987- Enforcement of Provisions Governing the Safety of Consumer Goods” (1987), 50 The Modern Law Review I. 5, pp. 622-638..
5. DEARDS, Elspeth: “The Proposed Guarantees Directive: Is It Fit for the Purpose?” (1998), 21 Journal of Consumer Policy, pp.99-119.
6. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) First Consultation on EC Directive 1999/44/EC on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees, (2001 London)
7. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov. uk/ccp/archive/consultations.htm
8. Second Consultation on EC Directive 1999/44/EC on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees (2002 London) www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/archieve/ consultations.htm

9. FLOUDAS, Demetrius Andreas: “Some Aspects of Liability for Defective Products in England, France and Greece After Directive 85/374/EEC” http://www.intersticeconsulting.com/ documents/Product_Liability_EU.pdf
10. GRIFFITHS, Lord& DE VAL, Peter & DORMER, R. J: “Development in English Product Liability Law: A Comparision with the American System” (1987-1988) 62 Tulane Law Review, p. 353-403.
11. GRIFFITHS, Lord: “Development in English Product Liability Law: A Comparision with the American System” (1988) Tulane Law Review, pp. 349-377.
12. HOWELLS, Geraint G: “Implications of the Implementation and Non-Implementation of the EC Product Liability Directive” (1990), 41 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly No. 1, pp. 22-42.
13. KELLY, Patrick & ATTREE, Rebecca : European Product Liability, (2. Ed. Tottel, 1997).
14. MERKIN, Robert: A Guide to the Consumer Protection Act (Financial Training Publications, 1987).
15. NEWDICK, Christopher: “The Development Risk Defence of the Consumer Protection Act 1987” (1988), 47 Cambridge Law Journal, pp. 455-476.
16. NEWDICK, Christopher: “The Future of Negligence in Product Liability” (1987), 104 Law Quarterly Review, pp.284-310.
17. NEWDICK, Christopher: “Risk, Uncertainty and “Knowledge” in the Development Risk Defence” (1991), 20 Anglo-American Law Review, pp. 309-326.
18. OUGHTON, David & LOWRY, John: Textbook on Consumer Law (2. Ed. Blackstone Press/Oxford University Press, 2000).
19. OUGHTON, David &WILLETT, Chris: “Quality Regulation in European Private Law” (2002), 25 Journal of Consumer Policy pp. 299-328.
20. OWEN, David G: “The Evolution of Products Liability Law” (2007) 26 The Review of Litigation, I. 4, pp. 955-989.
21. SHEARS, Peter & ZOLLERS, Frances E. & HURD, Sandra N: “It will be the Biggest Change to Consumer Rights?” (2000), Journal of Business Law, pp. 262-277.
22. SWAGLER, Roger M: Caveat Emptor An Introductory Analysis of Consumer Problems, Cornell Unv., 1975.
23. ROGERS, W. V. H: Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (16. Ed. Sweet and Maxwell, 2002).
24. RAMSAY, Ian: Consumer Law and Policy Text and Materials on Regulating Consumer Markets (2. Ed. Hart publishing, 2007).
25. STAPLETON, Jane: “A Personal Evaluation of the Implementation of the EEC Directive (85/374/EEC) on Product Liability” (1993) 11 Torts Law Journal pp.93-125.
26. STAPLETON, Jane: Product Liability (Law in Context) (Butterworths, 1994).
27. STAPLETON, Jane: “Product Liability Reform -Real or Illusory” (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, I. 3, pp. 392-422.
28. TWIGG-FLESNER, Christian.& BRADGATE, Robert: “The E.C. Directive on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees- All Talk and No Do?” Web Journal of Current of Current Legal Issues, Issue 2, http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2000/issue2/flesner2.html pp.1-25.
29. TWIGG-FLESNER, Christian: “The E.C. Directive on Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees” (1999), 7 Consumer Law Journal, pp. 177-192.
30. TWIGG-FLESNER, Christian: “Dissatisfaction Guaranteed? The Legal Issues of Extended Warranties Explored” (2002) Web Journal of Current Legal Issues http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2002/ issue4/twigg-flesner4.html.
31. WATTERSON, Stephen: “Consumer Sales Directive 1999/44/EC- The Impact on English Law” (2001) 9 European Review of Private Law, pp. 197-221.
32. WILLETT, Chris: “The Rule of Contract Law in Product Liability” The Law of Product Liability, (in Grubb&Howells eds. Butterworths, 2000).
33. WILLETT, Chris & MORGAN-TAYLOR. Martin & NAIDOO. Andrea: “The Sale & Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations” (2004 Jan.) Journal of Business Law, pp. 94-120.