A brief explanation

Last week StateCareAndMore.eu carried an article about a person who successfully challenged a clause in a contract, that a deposit was ‘not refundable’ (‘The right to have a non-refundable deposit returned’). Maybe some of our readers wondered how come the inclusion of such a report, on an e-journal dedicated to citizens’ rights and the State’s duty to care for its citizens?

The answer to this simply that there are other actors apart from the State, who can interfer with citizens’ rights. The citizen dons many caps in his / her daily life. One of them is that of a consumer, and as such interacts with businesses. There are large, powerful business entities, and smaller ones. None of them are being presented by StateCareAndMore.eu as evil. They are service-providers, the motors of the economy; they create jobs and generate wealth. Society could not operate without businesses. On the other hand, it is felt by StateCareAndMore.eu that there is no harm in occasionally presenting some reports on consumer rights and related issues. It is felt that there is more to raising awareness about citizens’ rights than fundamental human rights and respect for the rule of law. The court report presented a scenario that many of us are likely to face in our day-to-day lives, whether buying a car, or ordering furniture, or any other item. The Court’s message is that even if the deposit is ‘non-refundable’, this condition is qualified. We felt that this was an issue of general interest, so we covered it too, even though the State was not directly a party to the case.
 
Another consumer-related matter caught my attention this week. It concerns a particularly popular chain of fast food outlets. A US consumer group is threatening the food chain with court action unless they put an end to their practice of enticing kids to buy their meals by offering free toys. This consumer group’s executive director explained ‘I’m sure the industry’s defenders will blame parents for not saying ‘no’ to their children. Parents do bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make prents’ job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising’.
 
As a parent myself,  I know what this consumer group is talking about. I also concur with the ‘multi-billion’ description: these are private entities with money and resources easily surpassing those of the government of a small State.  On the other hand, this article is not intended to cast a bad light on the particular food chain (or any other business for that matter). However, we are here talking childrens’ welfare and parents’ rights. I would also expect the outcome of such an action to affect not only the US market but to have global ripples, including locally. If free toys with these meals are banned in the USA, why not locally too? One to watch out for, in my opinion. To read the press release go to http://www.cspinet.org/new/201006221.html .
 
As for the State, of course it is always there lingering in the background. It passes laws, including legislation aimed at consumer protection. Consumer rights are the fruit of the State in its role as regulator. It is also dispute-resolver, upholding the position of the party that is in the right (for example ordering the return of the deposit that the car dealer took to be his own by right). I am confident that it will be there to uphold the position of the US consumer group, if proved to be the correct position that is.