Does the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (or equivalent) cover UK NHS prescriptions? In the UK the NHS provides free-of-charge health care, with a few exceptions e.g. a patient has to pay about £8 per drug on prescription. An NHS doctor prescribes a drug that is unsuitable for a particular patient (tablet form, for a patient that cannot swallow tablets), and the doctor knows this in advance. The patent discovers this when at home, but cannot return drug (for safety reasons). The issue is rectified by a new drug being prescribed. However the patient is expected to pay a 2nd time. If the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied, then the patient could return the drug as not suitable for the particular purpose. Does the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or some other statute, apply? Or is the NHS exempt?
There is, as far as I can see, no Crown exemption from the sale of goods acts (including the International Sale of Goods Conventions), but unfortunately for this patient the NHS has no liability either in logic or in law. The doctor provided a written prescription, for which there is no charge, and which allows patients to buy certain drugs. The patient took the prescription to a chemist's, which (for money) provided the drug specified in it. Even if the patient had noticed that the prescription was for the wrong form of medicine, the pharmacist has no discretion to alter it; if the prescription specifies tablets, the patient can either buy the tablets or not buy them and take the prescription back to the doctor. In neither case has either the doctor or the chemist committed any conceivable offence regarding sale of goods. (There might theoretically be a case for negligence, but it would never be worth either suing a doctor for an £8 prescription fee or reporting him to the authorities for writing a prescription for the right drug in the wrong form).
Yes. There is both a duty to disclose and permit inspection of certain records (e.g. those that adversely affect either party's case or support another party's case) and a right for the court to demand access to other specific records. In england-and-wales the applicable rules are found in Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. For example: Standard disclosure 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only– (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and (c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. Specific disclosure (1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection. (2) An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more of the following things – (a) disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order; (b) carry out a search to the extent stated in the order; (c) disclose any documents located as a result of that search. Party's control 31.8 (1) A party’s duty to disclose documents is limited to documents which are or have been in his control. (2) For this purpose a party has or has had a document in his control if – (a) it is or was in his physical possession; (b) he has or has had a right to possession of it; or (c) he has or has had a right to inspect or take copies of it. Right of inspection 31.3 (1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect that document except where – (a) the document is no longer in the control of the party who disclosed it; (b) the party disclosing the document has a right or a duty to withhold inspection of it, or (c) paragraph (2) applies. (2) Where a party considers that it would be disproportionate to the issues in the case to permit inspection of documents within a category or class of document disclosed under rule 31.6(b) – (a) he is not required to permit inspection of documents within that category or class; but (b) he must state in his disclosure statement that inspection of those documents will not be permitted on the grounds that to do so would be disproportionate. Inspection and copying 31.15 Where a party has a right to inspect a document– (a) that party must give the party who disclosed the document written notice of his wish to inspect it; (b) the party who disclosed the document must permit inspection not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the notice; and (c) that party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request. And, in case there's any doubt that this applies to electronic records: Meaning of document 31.4 In this Part – ‘document’ means anything in which information of any description is recorded;
Informed consent is required for a surgical procedure. &quot;Informed&quot; includes having knowledge of the risks. The relevant legal question would be whether the doctor in question did adequately apprise the patient of the risks. On an individual basis, patient A could sue doctor X for the resulting harm. It is possible that 5 patients might sue the same doctor on this basis, which gets expensive and inefficient. If there is a well-defined and large-enough class, it may be possible for the action to be certified as a class action. 20 people might be a large-enough class. The defendant would be &quot;whoever is responsible for the wrong&quot;. That might be a single practitioner, or a hospital that the practitioner(s) work for. The hospital is an obvious plaintiff, if they failed in their duty to assure that their employees adequately informed patients of the risk.
As written, your question seems to ask for legal advice in a specific case. That would be off-topic. If you are asking strictly as a hypothetical: In germany, there is supposed to be the Bestellerprinzip for services of a real state agent (whoever retains the agent pays the fees). This was clarified in the Gesetz zur Regelung der Wohnungsvermittlung as changed in 2015. Landlords and real estate agents are frequently trying to get around it, but getting the legal construction of the contracts wrong would mean a substantial fine.
There is no &quot;normal&quot; or &quot;standard situation&quot;. The parties are free to negotiate whatever terms they like within any limitations imposed by law. If you're unhappy with the proposed terms then you should either negotiate to include a liability limitation clause, refuse to agree the NDA, or consider whether the benefits of signing it outweigh your concerns. If you are entering into the NDA as a consumer and with a trader, then in england-and-wales, you might have some protection from Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which provides: (1) An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer. (4) A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. For example, a contract which imposes unlimited liability on a consumer, while capping the liability of the trader, could be unfair. This will very much depend on all the circumstances and what the contract as a whole says: (5) Whether a term is fair is to be determined — (a) taking into account the nature of the subject matter of the contract, and (b) by reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed and to all of the other terms of the contract or of any other contract on which it depends. A term also can't be assessed for fairness if it specifies the main subject matter of the contract (which arguably a liability clause in a NDA does) and the term is transparent and prominent (see Section 64). &quot;I also don't understand the following wording: ...breach of this Agreement may cause irreparable harm to XXXXXX. Therefore, in addition to any other remedies available to XXXXXX, XXXXXX may obtain injunctive relief in the event of any breach or alleged breach of this Agreement without proving actual damages.&quot; What this is saying is that, in addition to all the usual actions that the other party could take against you for breaching the NDA (e.g. suing you for damages in the event that they suffer a loss from your breach), they can also apply to a court for an injunction without needing to prove that your breach caused them any loss. An injunction in this case would be a court order requiring you to stop breaching the NDA (e.g. to stop divulging information subject to the NDA).
Given a large database of email addresses that you can't prove have given consent to receive email, the only legal thing to do with it, is to (securely) delete it. (I am going to switch your question about a larger company to a bank: in the UK, big pharma is forbidden from advertising to individuals.) In principle the rules are the same for a huge bank and everything down to a self-employed plumber. In practice the plumber will be told "don't do that again" rather than fined. This case was treated under the Data Protection Act, which has a maximum fine of £500,000&nbsp;&ndash; so a big bank would probably have been fined more, but not necessarily much more. Under GDPR, fines are related to turnover, so the fine would be a lot bigger for a large bank. The incident is a year old now. Details here.
In England and Wales and Scotland, 'licensed premises', i.e. premises authorised to serve alcohol, are obliged to provide free drinking water to customers on request. Unlicensed premises are not obliged to provide drinking water. In England and Wales, all licensed premises &quot;must ensure that free potable water is provided on request to customers where it is reasonably available&quot;. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111116906/schedule?view=plain In Scotland, all licensed premises are obliged to provide &quot;tap water fit for drinking&quot; free to customers on request. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/16/schedule/4/paragraph/8/2005-12-21?view=plain In Northern Ireland there is no law providing for giving customers free water on request. Schools in Great Britain (i.e. not Northern Ireland) are obliged to supply free drinking water. England https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/made Scotland https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/153/regulation/7/made Wales https://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2009/3/section/5 All UK workplaces must provide workers an &quot;adequate supply of wholesome drinking water&quot;. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/22/made
I don't know of any law, state or federal, that would prohibit the disclosure of these facts. Such a law would almost certainly be unconstitutional under Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, (1976). In that case, consumer groups sued to invalidate a Virginia law prohibiting pharmacists from disclosing the prices of their products to the general public. The state argued that &quot;purely commercial&quot; speech did not enjoy First Amendment protection, but the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that unless it is deceptive or misleading, commercial speech enjoys normal First Amendment protections: Virginia is free to require whatever professional standards it wishes of its pharmacists; it may subsidize them or protect them from competition in other ways. ... But it may not do so by keeping the public in ignorance of the entirely lawful terms that competing pharmacists are offering. In this sense, the justifications Virginia has offered for suppressing the flow of prescription drug price information, far from persuading us that the flow is not protected by the First Amendment, have reinforced our view that it is. Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 770 (1976). I'd therefore assume this is just a matter of store policy. From the pharmacy's perspective, advertising its inventory of controlled substances probably makes as much sense as putting up a sign advertising how much money is currently in the cash registers.