Authorized specialists have stated that present legal guidelines are ample to guard shoppers, subsequently there is no such thing as a must rush the lemon legislation which is being thought-about for autos consumers, reported The Star.
Current client safety legal guidelines, such because the Sale of Items Act 1957, Shopper Safety Act 1999 (CPA), Contract Act 1950, Management of Provides Act 1961, and Rent Buy Act 1967 may very well be strengthened to reinforce client safety, in accordance with former president of the Malaysian Bar Salim Bashir who led the Bar Council from 2020 to 2021.
Whereas these legal guidelines supply shoppers recourse for faulty items, particular provisions required amendments for higher safety, Salim stated. “It’s crucial to fine-tune present legal guidelines by the use of amendments with out introducing a brand new lemon legislation in Parliament,” he stated.
Earlier this month, the ministry of home commerce and value of residing (KPDN) launched two interim methods aimed toward defending shoppers relating to the precise to assert compensation for faulty or defective merchandise – notably for motorcar purchases – earlier than a brand new authorized framework earlier than the proposed lemon legislation is finalised, in accordance with its minister Armizan Mohd Ali.
A number of shortcomings have been highlighted by Salim, particularly the absence of a transparent definition of merchantable high quality as acknowledged underneath Part 16 of the Sale of Items Act. Whereas the CPA presents supplementary client safety, the act additionally permits events to override client rights by particular agreements which weaken its effectiveness in some circumstances, Salim added.
On this, Salim cited the case of Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd v NZ Wheels Sdn Bhd in 2012, during which the court docket voided the contract over a faulty automotive that failed to fulfill acceptable high quality requirements underneath Part 12 (2) of the Shopper Safety Act.
Part 51 of the CPA didn’t supply redress in opposition to producers if defects arose from exterior elements after the product has left the manufacturing unit, and the CPA additionally didn’t enable curiosity teams to file lawsuits on behalf of shoppers, thus limiting collective motion.
In the meantime, Datuk Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor, who can also be a former Bar Council president, voiced his assist for a lemon legislation particularly for autos. Whereas the CPA and Sale of Items Act supply some client safety, they lack specifics in addressing recurring car defects which go away shoppers with out clear cures.
Abdul Fareed, who led the Malaysian Bar from 2019 to 2020, highlighted the absence of guarantee requirements and restore deadlines, which regularly left shoppers ready for prolonged intervals for repairs with no correct framework for claiming damages. “We’d like clearer guarantee requirements and cheap restore deadlines,” he stated.
The facility disparity between shoppers and enormous automotive corporations complicates efforts for a client to claim their rights underneath the CPA, the place negotiating repairs of refunds may very well be troublesome, resulting in dissatisfaction and disputes.
A lemon legislation sometimes shifted the burden of proof to the producer as soon as a car was deemed faulty, forcing corporations to behave in good religion whereas offering stronger client safety with out extended authorized battles, Abdul Fareed stated.
“Introducing a lemon legislation will supply clearer cures and shift the burden of proof to producers, giving shoppers extra safety,” Abdul Fareed stated.
Whereas there are undoubtedly potential advantages of a lemon legislation, he warned of unintended penalties comparable to elevated litigation and better prices for each companies and shoppers. “Cautious implementation with clear tips is important to stability client rights with enterprise pursuits and keep away from a damaging financial affect,” he added.
Seeking to promote your automotive? Promote it with Carro.
