Determining "defectiveness" in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Eleanor J. Russell

Determining "defectiveness" in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Eleanor J. Russell

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

82 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Examines Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd (SC) on whether the lower courts had erred by not holding that a hip replacement prosthesis was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Notes the Act's definitions of "product", "damage" and "defect".

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	53-62
Number of pages	9
Journal	Scots Law Times
Issue number	11
Publication status	Published - 31 Mar 2023

Keywords

Burden of proof
Defective products
Hip
Medical implants
Scotland
Statistical evidence
Surgical procedures

Documents and Links

Author accepted manuscript
Reproduced in accordance with the publisher policy. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Scots Law Times following peer review. The definitive published version Russell, E. J. (2023). Determining "defectiveness" in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Scots Law Times, (11), 53-62 is available online on Westlaw UK.
Author accepted manuscript, 282 KB

Cite this

@article{27d9f32d38534879b3388a46c657145f,

title = "Determining {"}defectiveness{"} in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987",

abstract = "Examines Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd (SC) on whether the lower courts had erred by not holding that a hip replacement prosthesis was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Notes the Act's definitions of {"}product{"}, {"}damage{"} and {"}defect{"}.",

keywords = "Burden of proof, Defective products, Hip, Medical implants, Scotland, Statistical evidence, Surgical procedures",

author = "Russell, {Eleanor J.}",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

day = "31",

language = "English",

pages = "53--62",

journal = "Scots Law Times",

issn = "0036-908X",

publisher = "Sweet and Maxwell",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determining "defectiveness" in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

AU - Russell, Eleanor J.

PY - 2023/3/31

Y1 - 2023/3/31

N2 - Examines Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd (SC) on whether the lower courts had erred by not holding that a hip replacement prosthesis was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Notes the Act's definitions of "product", "damage" and "defect".

AB - Examines Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics Ltd (SC) on whether the lower courts had erred by not holding that a hip replacement prosthesis was defective within the terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Notes the Act's definitions of "product", "damage" and "defect".

KW - Burden of proof

KW - Defective products

KW - Hip

KW - Medical implants

KW - Scotland

KW - Statistical evidence

KW - Surgical procedures

UR - https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ICB470320CE8E11ED8557FBBBA2581DD8/View/FullText.html

M3 - Article

SN - 0036-908X

SP - 53

EP - 62

JO - Scots Law Times

JF - Scots Law Times

IS - 11

ER -

Determining "defectiveness" in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Abstract

Keywords

Documents and Links

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this