Implied Terms (Could be common law controls OR statutory controls OR both)

Shirlaw

This case established the officious bystander test which stated that only those terms which are obvious are to be included within a contract. However, if they were that obvious to begin with then why did the courts need to create the test in the first place? This test also gives judges a lot of power as they have to decide whether the term passes the test and is therefore implied into the contract. 

Consumer Rights Act 2015

This act respects the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy as Parliament created this law and put the different rules in place. This Act helps to protect consumers against unfair practices carried out by businesses. It recognises that consumers need extra protection as they are usually in a weaker bargaining position in terms of money and knowledge. 

Section 9 (quality) Section 10 (fit for purpose) Section 11 (description)

These sections make it fair for both the consumer and the business. Businesses are unable to claim that these sections are unfair as you expect a product to meet these requirements anyway so they do not place an unfair burden upon businesses. Over all, these sections are a justified interference with the freedom of contract principle as consumers are in a potentially vulnerable position.

Griffiths and Grant

These cases demonstrate that the courts adopt a piecemeal approach towards cases involving the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which leads to fairer outcomes for consumers as each case is dealt with on its own merits. However, this whole approach is highly undemocratic and leads to inconsistent decisions within the Legal System which then leads to lawyers' jobs becoming more complicated.

Re Moore

This case demonstrates how the court's interference in cases can lead to unfair and ridiculous outcomes. Even though the buyer received the correct number of peaches, due to them being packed incorrectly, the purchaser was able to claim for breach of contract. This highlights how the CRA 2015 allows purchasers to be given a second chance if they have made a bad deal and create uncertainty in the law and unfairness on behalf of businesses.