- Joined
- Jul 10, 2021
- Messages
- 2
Folks
There have been numerous discussions about TVS Norton not accepting liability for Garner-era bikes, and it has been suggested that warranty and safety liabilities should have been transferred as part of the sale process. When Norton Motorcycles (NMUL) was acquired, ongoing obligations for product safety and consumer rights should have been transferred to the new owners. TVS Norton claimed the models they would produce would be entirely new and not continuation products. However, consumer protection laws mandate that such liabilities transfer to ensure ongoing consumer safety and rights, especially when products continue to be sold under the same brand.
A formal complaint has been raised with BDO, Norton, The Insolvency Service, and Trading Standards. Commando 961 and V4SS owners from the NMUL era have clear evidence that TVS Norton has misled the public, showing that the new products are continuation products. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods sold must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. The failure to ensure the transfer of warranty and safety obligations undermines ongoing consumer protection, leaving V4SS owners without proper recourse for significant safety defects, thus violating their statutory rights.
Moreover, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 require that products placed on the market are safe for use. Refusing to address safety defects by not ensuring the transfer of obligations to the new owner compromises consumer safety and contravenes these regulations. The misrepresentation by TVS Norton that their models are new, rather than continuation products, to avoid warranty and recall responsibilities constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, as defined in Derry v Peek [1889].
In UK insolvency law, a "continuation product" refers to a new product substantially similar to a previous product made by an insolvent company, potentially making the new manufacturer liable for the original product's defects and liabilities under principles of successor liability and product liability. Courts consider factors such as design similarities, consumer perception, branding, and production methods to determine continuity.
Applying principles from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and case law such as Re Polly Peck International (No 3)and Saint-Gobain Pam UK Ltd v Fusion Provida Ltd, the new manufacturer may be held liable for the original product's defects.
Precedent cases like the General Motors UK (Vauxhall Zafira Case) underscore the importance of transferring product liabilities and taking proactive steps to address safety concerns, even in the context of corporate restructuring or insolvency. Failure to do so with the V4SS and Commando 961 models can expose Norton to similar legal risks and consumer backlash, as well as regulatory scrutiny.
Message me at shaun.taylor@mac.com, and I will share the formal complaint so you can decide if you want to complain to BDO and others in order to address your own situation
There have been numerous discussions about TVS Norton not accepting liability for Garner-era bikes, and it has been suggested that warranty and safety liabilities should have been transferred as part of the sale process. When Norton Motorcycles (NMUL) was acquired, ongoing obligations for product safety and consumer rights should have been transferred to the new owners. TVS Norton claimed the models they would produce would be entirely new and not continuation products. However, consumer protection laws mandate that such liabilities transfer to ensure ongoing consumer safety and rights, especially when products continue to be sold under the same brand.
A formal complaint has been raised with BDO, Norton, The Insolvency Service, and Trading Standards. Commando 961 and V4SS owners from the NMUL era have clear evidence that TVS Norton has misled the public, showing that the new products are continuation products. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods sold must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. The failure to ensure the transfer of warranty and safety obligations undermines ongoing consumer protection, leaving V4SS owners without proper recourse for significant safety defects, thus violating their statutory rights.
Moreover, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 require that products placed on the market are safe for use. Refusing to address safety defects by not ensuring the transfer of obligations to the new owner compromises consumer safety and contravenes these regulations. The misrepresentation by TVS Norton that their models are new, rather than continuation products, to avoid warranty and recall responsibilities constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, as defined in Derry v Peek [1889].
In UK insolvency law, a "continuation product" refers to a new product substantially similar to a previous product made by an insolvent company, potentially making the new manufacturer liable for the original product's defects and liabilities under principles of successor liability and product liability. Courts consider factors such as design similarities, consumer perception, branding, and production methods to determine continuity.
Applying principles from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and case law such as Re Polly Peck International (No 3)and Saint-Gobain Pam UK Ltd v Fusion Provida Ltd, the new manufacturer may be held liable for the original product's defects.
Precedent cases like the General Motors UK (Vauxhall Zafira Case) underscore the importance of transferring product liabilities and taking proactive steps to address safety concerns, even in the context of corporate restructuring or insolvency. Failure to do so with the V4SS and Commando 961 models can expose Norton to similar legal risks and consumer backlash, as well as regulatory scrutiny.
Message me at shaun.taylor@mac.com, and I will share the formal complaint so you can decide if you want to complain to BDO and others in order to address your own situation
