Read Case study of A and others v The National Blood Authority and others [2001] 3 All ER 289 Have cases since this decision de

Indeed, the case of A and others v National Blood Authority and another became a landmark and certainly the first case in UK for being the first case in UK to succeed against the producer of a medical product. The Consumer Protection Act arising from this case certainly gained much footing and has since remained relatively unchanged with time. However, several other cases seem to enforce rather than change consumer law in UK. It is worth noting, however, that the case of A and others v National Blood Authority and another gained strong ground based on the fact that consumer protection was viewed from what the consumers are entitled to expect as opposed to the reasonable ability of the producer in delivering safe products. In the case of Worsley v Tambrands Ltd, Worsley argued that tampons manufactured by Tambrands were defective since the manufacturer did not provide clear warnings regarding the risk of toxic shock syndrome. However, this argument was rejected by the court based on the argument that defectiveness of products is based on minimum standards (Howells and Weatherill 241-243). Therefore, the developments of Worsley v Tambrands Ltd’s case only affirmed the basis of consumer protection Act developed from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. One of the most recent cases BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] seemed to bring a new twist to consumer protection Act. In this case, the important factor to be put into consideration is the obligation of the manufacturer to furnish the user with adequate information concerning the use and compatibility of a product (Bicknell web). However, this case seems to strengthen rather than change the provisions arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another. The court ruling seemed to underpin the obligation of the manufacturer to provide adequate information on use of products. This had already been coined in the earlier case A and others v National Blood Authority and another. Another, yet very recent case, Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd amp. Anor v ADT Fire and security Plc [2011] also mirrored the already established consumer protection Act. According to the, the purchasers arguments CO2 fire suppression system they had purchased for their popcorn machinery in the factory was not fit for purpose. According to the case ruling, they failed to adequately notify the supplier of the intended use of the product they purchased and therefore, they could not have relied upon the supplier’s technical skills and reasonable judgment (Bailii web). However, a more interesting case IdevATB Sales Ltd (2007), provided a deeper mirror on consumer protection Act. From the case proceedings, the Judge posited that fatigue cracking was a probable cause of the fracture leading to the accident of the victim. However, proof of failure of the product during normal use had to be supplied adequately (Sweet and Maxwell web). The ruling in this case did not actually change any aspect of consumer protection Act arising from A and others v National Blood Authority and another but to the contrary, only seemed to coin what had already been put forward. However, there seemed to be a