Do companies have to ensure that a person doesn&#39;t suffer from dementia when selling products or services to them in the UK? Son confronts salesman for 'selling confused mum £6k doors' Do companies have to ensure that a person doesn't suffer from dementia when selling products or services to them? I am wondering if companies face criminal liability if they sell products to someone who cannot make rational decisions and if they have the responsibility to make sure the person they are selling to can make rational decisions on their own.
No Overview There is no general rule requiring a seller to determine the mental condition of a buyer. However, if a seller knows or has good reason to know that a buyer does in fact had dementia or some other mental problem, and is not or may well not be able to understand the nature of the deal or the reasons why it is or is not a good bargain, if the seller took advantage of the buyer's mental condition, then the seller may be liable. Also, if the buyer's condition is such that the buyer is deemed not to be capable of properly entering into a contract, that is the buyer lacks the capacity to contract, then the contract may well be void from teh4 start. The Video The video linked in the question shows a man confronting a salesman who, he alleges, sold two houshold doors to his mother for a total of just under 6,000 pounds UK. The son claims that it was obvious that his mother was impaired. He claims that the only problem was that one door had a broken handle and latch, which could easily be repaired for 50 pounds. He claims that the salesman falsely states that the doors were &quot;not safe&quot; without mentioning that the one with a problem could easily be repaired, and need not be replaced. He also claims that the salesman took checks in payment, in spite of the printed terms on the invoice saying that no payment was due until after installation. He says repeatedly that the salesman &quot;pressured&quot; his mother into making this purchase, and describes it as &quot;robbery&quot;. No proof is shown in the video, and no court decision is refereed to. I express no vieo as to whether the claims of the son in the video are accurate. But I do discuss situations where similar claims are accurate. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (UTR) It sees that a sales agent acting similarly to the one accused in the video might have committed unfair practices and thus offenses under the UTR, specifically &quot;aggressive selling&quot;, &quot;misleading statements&quot;, and &quot;misleading omissions&quot;. Under the UK Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (UTR) regulation 3, specifically 3(3) and 3(4): (3) A commercial practice is unfair if— (a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and (b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product. (4) A commercial practice is unfair if— (a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5; (b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6; (c) it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or (d) it is listed in Schedule 1. UTR regulation 5 provides in relevant part: 5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3). (2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph— (a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and (b) it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise UTR Regulation 7 on Aggressive commercial practices provides in relevant part: 7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances— (a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer's freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and (b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. (2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of— ... (c) the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer's judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer's decision with regard to the product; UTR regulation 8 provides in relevant part: 8.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if— (a) he knowingly or recklessly engages in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence under regulation 3(3)(a); and (b) the practice materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product under regulation 3(3)(b). UTR schedule 1(12) describes as unfair: Making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family if the consumer does not purchase the product. UTR regulations 9 through 12 make unfair practices, as described in regulations 3 through 7 and schedule 1, offenses punishable by fine or imprisonment. These might well apply to the practices alleged in the video linked in the question Financial Conduct Authority A Guidance from the UK Financial Conduct Authority is available online. This seems to apply more to sales of financial products (e.g. investments) than physical goods such as doors. It is also a draft, not a final regulation. But it more specifically deals with people vulnerable due to metal issues, and might show the trend of regulation on such issues in the UK. 2.1 In our Approach to Consumers we define a vulnerable consumer as ‘someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to detriment, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care’ (as presented in our Occasional Paper 8 on Consumer Vulnerability) ... 2.14 (g) Exposure to mis-selling – vulnerable consumers may be more likely to fall victim to pressure selling, or be provided with the wrong information about potential products or services by staff who do not understand their circumstances. People with mental health problems, for example, are more likely to have mistakenly bought a product on credit and 3 in 4 of those felt pressured into doing so. 2.15 We expect the firms we regulate to treat customers, including vulnerable customers, fairly. Our previous work has shown that not all firms treat vulnerable consumers fairly, and those consumers face a significant risk of harm. Vulnerability is, therefore, a key priority for the FCA Conclusion I have not found any UK law or regulation that requires firms or people doing general business to determine if a potential customer suffers from Alzheimer's, dementia, or any similar mental issue. However, taking advantage of people who exhibit symptoms of such problems might be found to be an unfair practice, and so lead to civil or criminal liability
Contractual terms must always be read in context. Given the context, it is unlikely that the term could support the definition that you are worried about. It is clear that the purpose of you appointing the company as your attorney is to allow them to perfect the IP rights you have given them by the other parts of the clause; not to allow them to sell your house or make end-of-life decisions. If you are worried about it, ask them what they mean and ask for the clause to be clarified to your satisfaction.
If I have correctly untangled the law, Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act part 3 identifies as a condition where you are not prohibited from revealing personal data: The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. The Animal Welfare Act 25(1) says An inspector may require the holder of a licence to produce for inspection any records which he is required to keep by a condition of the licence I can't tell if you are required to keep customer names, but if you are, it looks like the pieces fit together and you would have to provide the records. Call a solicitor to be sure, though.
By definition, when a death is diagnosed as an instance of SIDS, the actual cause of death is not known. (If the cause is known or is determined by autopsy, the diagnosis is not SIDS.) Thus there can be no proof that the bassinet was the cause, or even a contributing factor, in the death, and therefore the seller of the bassinet should have no liability. If there was some other cause of death that was due to the condition of the bassinet, there could possibly be liability. For example, say the bassinet broke suddenly, causing the baby to fall and death resulted. But here I think ther could be liability only if the seller knew (or suspected) that the bassinet was in an unsafe condition, or if a reasonable person in the seller's position would have known or suspected this, or possibly if the seller made knowingly false statements about the condition which made the bassinet seem safer than it in fact was. None of these matches the situation described in the question. However, in many jurisdictions there are laws specifically forbidding the sale of used mattresses, adult or infant, regardless of their detailed condition or how they are described. In such a jurisdiction the seller could not lawfully include the mattress as part of the sale. With a new mattress it would be even harder to link the seller to any SIDS case, as any risk factor from an overly-soft mattress would not be the seller's responsibility.
Yes, it's absolutely legal. It turns out that UK retailers offer replacement out of their own politeness and are not required to do so by law. If they gave you refund then that's all they need to do.
Trademarks protect against consumer confusion. Ask yourself if a consumer seeing that image with the &quot;studio&quot; portion removed might think that the altered image represents the same company as the original image. Of course, the answer will be &quot;yes.&quot; But in the end it also depends on how the trademark is used. You've used the original image in the question; have you violated the trademark? No. Do you violate Tesco's trademark when you say &quot;I went shopping at Tesco&quot;? No. Do you violate their trademark when you sell food using the name &quot;Tesco&quot;? Yes. A distinctive graphic design such as this will also be protected by copyright, so you will also have to consider whether your intended use infringes copyright.
The "logbook" is required by federal law, part of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. See 21 USC 830 (e) (1) (A): Each regulated seller shall ensure that, subject to subparagraph (F), sales by such seller of a scheduled listed chemical product at retail are made in accordance with the following [...] (ii) The seller maintains, in accordance with criteria issued by the Attorney General, a written or electronic list of such sales that identifies the products by name, the quantity sold, the names and addresses of purchasers, and the dates and times of the sales (which list is referred to in this subsection as the “logbook”), except that such requirement does not apply to any purchase by an individual of a single sales package if that package contains not more than 60 milligrams of pseudoephedrine. "Scheduled listed chemical" is defined in 21 USC 802 (45) and includes pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient of Sudafed). As you can see, no distinction is drawn between prescription and OTC purchases. HIPAA became law in 1996. I'm not sure whether HIPAA would normally forbid the keeping of such a logbook (it mostly restricts how a provider can disclose information, not so much how it can store information), but even if it did, CMEA was passed later, so it would take precedence. Thus there is no way to "enable HIPAA" to avoid CMEA's requirements. (The passage quoted above does indicate a possible way to avoid the logbook: buy less than 60 mg at a time. That seems to correspond to two standard tablets. However, it's conceivable that a pharmacy might decide it wants to put such purchases in its logbook anyway; it's not clear to me that HIPAA or any other law would forbid them from making that a condition of purchase.) There may also be specific laws in your state placing further restrictions on pseudoephedrine purchases.
Is it actually necessary for businesses (such as a Small Town News USA Inc) that do not reside in EU to care about GDPR? Only if they offer goods/services to or monitor behavior of people in the EU (Art. 3(2)). Note that: having a commerce-oriented website that is accessible to EU residents does not by itself constitute offering goods or services in the EU. Rather, a business must show intent to draw EU customers, for example, by using a local language or currency. If it is then how (and by whom) would compliance be audited and/or enforced? Supervisory Authorities will care of it.