On September 19, 2024, the Jamaica Gleaner reported that the Supreme Court of Jamaica had ruled against automotive juggernaut ATL Automotive Limited (/ATL Autobahn Limited) in the case of Jason Samuels v ATL Automotive Limited [2024] JMSC Civ 79 finding, among other things, that a 2014 Volkswagen Jetta that it had sold to the claimant as brand new was not of merchantable quality. In this regard, the Court opined in paragraph [154] of the judgment that “[a] new car that cannot be driven safely is useless to its owner and cannot be described as of merchantable quality”. ATL Automotive Limited (/ATL Autobahn Limited) was ultimately ordered to pay to the claimant “$1,088,042.68 as general damages with interest at 3% per annum from February 25, 2014, to July 19, 2024” as well as special damages in the amount of $26,512.11 in addition to the claimant’s costs. Undoubtedly, the Jason Samuels decision is an important one for consumer rights protection in Jamaica since anyone can find themselves in the rather unfortunate, and unnecessary, battle in which Mr. Samuels found himself with ATL Automotive Limited (/ATL Autobahn Limited). Still, amidst it all, I cannot help but think that organizations such as the Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC), which is charged with “promoting and protecting consumer interests”, and the Consumers Intervention of Jamaica (CIJ), a third-sector entity whose mandate expressly concerns itself with consumer rights protection, among others, should be doing more to advance the cause of consumer protection in Jamaica, particularly in the context of disputes between automotive juggernauts like ATL Automotive Limited (/ATL Autobahn Limited) and considerably less powerful and well-connected Jamaican consumers.
Capacity-building for the CAC, the CIJ (and similar organizations) in the areas of legal and policy-oriented research, strategic litigation, technical expertise, and general advocacy really ought to be prioritized as a matter of urgency. I wonder, among other things, whether these organizations are actually in a position to ably assist consumers in understanding, for example, how not just the CPA but other relevant legislation, like the Sale of Goods Act, and even common law precedents (as influenced by relevant jurisprudential developments in the common law world) can apply in varied disputes? And what of this prevailing notion that car dealerships must be given multiple opportunities, throughout the warranty period, to address defects--regardless of their nature or severity and ultimate impact on the merchantable quality, safety, and usability of the motor vehicle--that have manifested with motor vehicles that they have represented and sold to consumers as brand new even though the relevant consumer protection laws say nothing about them deserving or having some right to multiple repair attempts? Are the relevant consumer rights protection organizations, like the CAC and CIJ, adequately well-positioned to help consumers understand, having regard to local and extra-jurisdictional precedents clarifying the application of the CPA, Sale of Goods Act and other relevant legislation, when or in what circumstances would the rights to have a faulty motor vehicle replaced or receiving a refund in consequence of having been sold a defective vehicle, as is provided for by the CPA, apply?
I am anticipating still further development of the law in the area of consumer rights
protection, which is urgently needed, and which will no doubt have been spurred on by the Supreme Court decision of Jason Samuels v ATL Automotive Limited.
Comments