CRA 2015 and Frustration
Tess bought a year’s supply of a weekly sports magazine from the publisher. She then paid
Vic, who had a delivery business, £60 in total to deliver the magazine to her each week
during the year. Vic delivered the sports magazine on time in the first two weeks but in the
following six weeks it was always late, usually by as much as a week. This was because there
were persistent errors in Vic’s delivery list.
Tess also paid £400 to Will for a ticket to attend a set of 10 events introducing ‘Punchball’, a
newly established, violent contact sport. Punchball had attracted a lot of public criticism,
including calls for it to be banned. After Tess had attended two of the Punchball events
organised by Will, legislation was passed which made it an offence to participate in or
promote Punchball in any way. Will reluctantly informed Tess that there would be no
further events for her to attend.
Consider the rights and remedies of Tess against Vic in connection with the contract for
delivery of the sports magazine.
Consider the rights and remedies of Tess and Will in connection with the contract to
attend the Punchball events.
Assess the extent to which justice may have been achieved by application of the rules
concerning the rights and remedies of Tess and Will against each other. [30 marks]
CRA 2015
Tess may have a claim against Vic for breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act
2015 (CRA).
Vic is providing a service (delivery) to Tess. There is a trader/consumer relationship present.
The Act implies that services must be performed with reasonable care and skill under s.49
(Thake v Maurice) and within a reasonable time under s.52. Vic’s repeated errors in the
delivery list and the resulting delays (up to one week late for six weeks) seem to breach
these implied terms. These delays indicate a failure to deliver the service as agreed, in a
manner that meets the standard of care and within a reasonable time.
If the delays are considered non-fundamental (not going to the root of the contract), Tess
could claim a price reduction under s.56, as the service was not performed in accordance
with the contract. However, if the delays are deemed fundamental, they are a repudiatory
breach). Therefore, Tess could terminate the contract and recover the £60 paid. This would
Tess bought a year’s supply of a weekly sports magazine from the publisher. She then paid
Vic, who had a delivery business, £60 in total to deliver the magazine to her each week
during the year. Vic delivered the sports magazine on time in the first two weeks but in the
following six weeks it was always late, usually by as much as a week. This was because there
were persistent errors in Vic’s delivery list.
Tess also paid £400 to Will for a ticket to attend a set of 10 events introducing ‘Punchball’, a
newly established, violent contact sport. Punchball had attracted a lot of public criticism,
including calls for it to be banned. After Tess had attended two of the Punchball events
organised by Will, legislation was passed which made it an offence to participate in or
promote Punchball in any way. Will reluctantly informed Tess that there would be no
further events for her to attend.
Consider the rights and remedies of Tess against Vic in connection with the contract for
delivery of the sports magazine.
Consider the rights and remedies of Tess and Will in connection with the contract to
attend the Punchball events.
Assess the extent to which justice may have been achieved by application of the rules
concerning the rights and remedies of Tess and Will against each other. [30 marks]
CRA 2015
Tess may have a claim against Vic for breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act
2015 (CRA).
Vic is providing a service (delivery) to Tess. There is a trader/consumer relationship present.
The Act implies that services must be performed with reasonable care and skill under s.49
(Thake v Maurice) and within a reasonable time under s.52. Vic’s repeated errors in the
delivery list and the resulting delays (up to one week late for six weeks) seem to breach
these implied terms. These delays indicate a failure to deliver the service as agreed, in a
manner that meets the standard of care and within a reasonable time.
If the delays are considered non-fundamental (not going to the root of the contract), Tess
could claim a price reduction under s.56, as the service was not performed in accordance
with the contract. However, if the delays are deemed fundamental, they are a repudiatory
breach). Therefore, Tess could terminate the contract and recover the £60 paid. This would
