most of the text isn't that useful (with regards to the cases etc - i haven't gone into hornsby et al or anything didn't want to stray from the point).
the articles by graeme are quite useful however... i mainly used him for the ideas behind s 52 (i.e. consumer protection foundations -- use in practice becomes more of a trade rival against trade rival thing, problems with contract law etc...) you should be able to get that though if you find a nice s 52 article on the net.
the main problem i'd see with not having the text is that you don't have the article: T Bougoignie, "Characteristics of Consumer Law" (1992) 14 Journal of Consumer Law 293-315. I haven't used him yet but he looks at the consummariat (collective dimension of consumer interests) which i thought was relevant. when i do my section on him i'll let u know if i come up with anything, but the guy's quite hard to translate. look at lecture two notes for graeme's take.
Insert from lecture on Bougoignie (transcription)(/edit - correct spelling is Bourgoignie so be careful): Contract law lines up very easily with the idea of the sovereignty of the consumer. So if I’m going to question the efficacy of contract law it seems I also have to give u a basis upon which u can question the idea of the sovereignty of the consumer and that’s why we read Bougoignie. So he says that the sovereignty of the consumer is a simply proposition that the dynamics of the economy are… that the consumer is the dynamic force behind the economy – that collectively consumers make their wants and needs known, producers meet those wants and needs and the degree to which they successfully meet them is the degree to which they are successful in the marketplace. So consumers are the motivator for the production of goods. And in our system that has a nice democratic resonance – consumers are the people so we’re responding to the dominant wishes of the people., woot. Bougoignie simply turns that around. P.12 a third the way down the page consumer related consequences is where he sets out his idea second sentence, forget the word norm. so he’s talking about a system of mass consumption based on the production and promotion of a growing number of goods and activities. So he says that’s the dynamic force in our economy – development of a system of mass consumption based on the production and promotion of a growing number of goods and activities....instead of that (the consumer operating on the producer and the producer producing goods) he simply turns that around and says that what we have is the producer, the production, the distribution, the consumption – the consumer comes last. He’s not critical of this – that’s just it he says that’s what’s happening – consumers were following a social norm and the norm is consumption (I think social norm only means social role), that role is valuable – the role is to consume what’s being produced. And I might be overly simplistic but I think what he then says is because that role of consumers consuming is so important for the economy and society generally the social norm is so important it needs to be supported. So what’s the role of the legal system? Consumer protection legislation should then support that social norm of consumption. You can see why I’d like that because I’ve spent a lot of time describing myself as a consumer advocate it gives me a rationale – its undertheorised and in the gap really have come in these ideas from contract that consumer protection should be intergrative but beware of intervention and isn’t it a pity it’s paternalistic. Boiswanie says no look at how society operates – we’ve got a mass production society, that’s what we base our economy on, consumers have an important role in that therefore the legal system should support them in that role – so get rid of all that stuff about paternalism because whether it’s paternalistic or not who cares, because our ideal is no longer voluntaristic contractual, our role is supporting them in this important social function, and thus you can put consumer protection back into consumer protection. He also says that individuals are both collective and individualistic, and that does seem obvious at first but it does introduce a new element into our thinking we’re used to thinking of law cases between two people we focus on the individual aspect of the parties. Consumer protection – since the consumer is involved in this great massive social function there’s a collective element about that are I think that’s all he means, that it’s individualistic and collective. And it’s objective subjective – it’s objective because we can look at a mass movement, it’s subjective because we can look at individuals. With respect to some of the students it’s all getting a bit theoretical here, a bit European, for common law lawyers who like things practical. So he talks about the consommariat there’s an aspect in which consumers come together as a group but also an aspect to which they’re individuals so there’s a subjective element about that. Why does that matter – one reason is we can’t winge too much about why do consumers need all this protection why don’t they just organize themselves and get on with it? Bring a court action themselves. The collective element. The problem with collectively is the subjective – while it is meaningful to talk about them as a group, talk of consumers as a group the trouble is we’re all consumers, we’re all consumers but we’re all consumers with a strong subjective element we’re all consumers in our individual transactions. So it’s very difficult to build up any group solidarity among consumers.
if you need page numbers etc just let us know and i'll post them... B's quite complex, i don't know how much i'll use him but when i work it out i'll let u know. don't stress honey - that's all i plan to use from the text - the rest can be gotton from articles.
