The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) was enacted in the United Kingdom to simplify and consolidate existing consumer protection laws. The objective was to make consumer rights easier to understand and follow while reducing confusion for businesses as well. With the fast-paced changes in technology and business practices, the government felt the need to introduce the CRA to reflect such developments. The Act specifically addressed challenges that have arisen due to digital contracts and downloads of digital content.

One of the key provisions of the CRA is the creation of certain rules for exclusion clauses in contracts, which are clauses that limit or eliminate one party's liabilities. The Act recognizes all contract terms, regardless of the type or the way they are stated. It also includes non-negotiated terms. However, the Unfair Contract Conditions Act 1977 (UCTA) applies only to non-consumer contracts, thus limiting businesses' ability to employ exclusion clauses to minimize liability.

According to Section 62 of the CRA, exclusion provisions must be "fair and reasonable". Section 63 establishes the minimum standard for determining whether an exclusion provision is "fair and reasonable," while Section 69 states that a condition in a consumer contract has no impact if it seeks to limit a dealer's liability for death or bodily damage caused by inaccuracy. The courts utilize these sections to apply the general principle of "fairness and reasonableness" to individual cases when deciding the validity and enforceability of exclusion clauses and other contract provisions.

Although the CRA has been widely praised for its success in protecting consumers from unfair clauses, it may not always be effective if both parties have equal negotiating power and freely agree to the terms, as in the case of Royal Mail Ltd v JH Wilson Ltd. The Act's rules on fairness and reasonableness may not apply to such a contractual arrangement.

In conclusion, the CRA provides essential protection for consumers against unfair practices and clauses in contracts. It consolidates and streamlines existing legislation while establishing new consumer rights and safeguards. The Act's key responsibilities include setting rules for exclusion clauses that limit one party's obligations.

In this scenario, contract law applies as it governs legally binding agreements. To form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration, as mandated by the objective theory of contract formation. This was established in the case of Smith V Hughes in 1871. Mustafa offered to sell Emma the watch for £1300, but Emma merely expressed interest in buying it and did not formally accept the offer, thus no contract was formed. Therefore, Mustafa has no legal obligation to sell the watch to Emma.

Consideration, which is something given or promised in exchange for something else valuable, is also essential in forming a contract. In this case, Emma did not offer any consideration to Mustafa, rendering the agreement invalid. However, a contract was made between Mustafa and Aminah, as both parties agreed on the terms, and consideration (money) was provided. Parker v Taswell established that verbal communication can also lead to a legally binding contract.

The postal rule, which states that acceptance of an offer made via mail or remote communication is effective upon posting, may also apply in this situation. Emma's email to Mustafa did not constitute a legally binding acceptance as she stated she needed more time to think about it. Though Emma sent a priority letter, it was not legally enforceable as the acceptance was made after the transaction was completed. Thus, Mustafa has no obligation to sell the watch to Emma as Aminah has already purchased it through a legally binding contract.

In conclusion, there is no contract between Mustafa and Emma, and Aminah has a legal claim to the watch. Emma's letter does not alter the facts or establish a legal contract. Mustafa is not legally bound to retrieve the watch from Aminah and sell it to Emma because of the established contract between Mustafa and Aminah. Royal Mail Ltd v JH Wilson upheld the legality of the postal rule.