Rohas Legal AI: Consumer

View saved version →

---
name: compensation-quantifier
description: Builds a compensation or damages claim head by head, using only the figures actually supplied, showing the arithmetic and flagging any head that is claimed without a supporting figure. Use this whenever a user wants a claim quantified rather than assessed on the merits — including phrasings like "work out what we can claim for this defective product", "quantify the compensation head by head", "add up the loss including refund, replacement cost and mental agony", "build the damages claim from these receipts", or "what does this claim total if we include litigation costs". This is a quantification tool, not a merits assessment — it does not decide whether the underlying claim succeeds; pair it with deficiency-analyst or product-liability-analyst for that. Fires for any compensation or damages claim, consumer or otherwise, wherever loss needs to be built up head by head from supplied figures.
---

# Compensation Quantifier

## What this does

Builds a compensation claim as a set of individual heads — cost of the defective good or service, consequential loss, mental agony or harassment, litigation costs, interest, and any other head the claimant wants included — using only the figures actually supplied, with the arithmetic shown for anything calculated rather than given as a flat sum. It does not assess whether the claim succeeds; it quantifies what the claim totals if each head is allowed.

## Before you start

**The facts and the loss actually suffered**, and which heads of claim the user wants included. This is blocking — a quantification exercise needs to know what is being quantified before it starts.

**Actual figures for each head.** Do not begin with a placeholder or estimated figure for anything the user has not supplied. Where a head is named but no figure given yet, that is a gap to flag, not a number to invent.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **the forum or law the claim will be brought under.** Certain heads — punitive or exemplary damages, litigation cost recovery, a specific interest rate or basis — are often forum- or law-dependent in whether they are even recoverable. Extract or ask; treat recoverability of any such head as a verification point rather than an assumption.

## Method

**1. List every head of claim the user wants included before assigning a single figure.** Building the list and the figures in the same pass tends to let heads get added ad hoc without the same scrutiny as the ones identified up front.

**2. For each head, use only the figure actually supplied.** Where a calculation is needed — interest on a principal sum over a period, for instance — show the arithmetic step by step, using only the rate and basis the user has given; do not assume a rate.

**3. Separate heads that are precisely quantifiable — a receipt, an invoice, a documented cost — from heads that are inherently a matter of judgment, such as mental agony or harassment.** For the latter, do not manufacture a specific figure to make the total look complete. State that the amount is discretionary and ask the user what figure, if any, they want claimed for it.

**4. Check for double-counting across heads.** Claiming both the cost of replacement and the difference in value for the same defect, for example, can overlap. Flag a potential overlap rather than letting the total absorb it silently.

**5. Total the claim, showing every head's individual figure alongside the sum**, so the arithmetic is fully auditable rather than presented as a single number to be trusted.

**6. Flag any head whose recoverability itself is uncertain or forum-dependent** — punitive damages, litigation costs, a specific interest basis — as a verification point. Do not assume a head is recoverable because the user asked for it to be included.

**7. Stop at quantification.** Do not assess whether the underlying deficiency, defect, or unfair trade practice is actually established — that is a different skill's job. This one quantifies on the assumption the claim succeeds.

## Output

**1. Header.** Claimant, respondent, matter, forum (if known), date.

**2. Heads of claim.** A table: Head | Basis or description | Figure supplied | Calculation shown (where applicable) | Status — Quantified, Discretionary (needs a figure from the claimant), or Recoverability uncertain.

**3. Total claimed.** The sum, broken down by head so it can be checked line by line.

**4. Discretionary heads.** A short list of heads where the amount is a matter of judgment, each flagged for the claimant or counsel to propose a specific figure.

**5. Potential overlaps.** Any heads that might double-count the same underlying loss.

**6. Points requiring verification.** Recoverability of specific heads, and the interest rate or basis used, under the applicable law or forum.

## Do not

Do not invent a figure the user has not supplied.

Do not assess whether the underlying claim succeeds on the merits. Quantify only.

Do not manufacture a specific number for an inherently discretionary head. Flag it as needing the claimant's own figure.

Do not assume a head of claim is recoverable — punitive damages, litigation costs, a specific interest basis — without flagging it as forum- or law-dependent.

Do not let the total include a double-counted head without flagging the overlap first.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: consumer-complaint-drafter
description: Drafts a consumer complaint — the formal filing that states the parties, establishes the forum's jurisdiction, particularises the defect, deficiency, or unfair trade practice alleged, and states the relief sought. Use this whenever a user wants to file a consumer complaint — including phrasings like "draft a consumer complaint over this defective appliance", "file a complaint for deficiency in service against this repair shop", "prepare a complaint for the district consumer forum", or "draft the complaint and state what relief we want". Side-specific — drafted for the complainant, against the opposite party. Pairs with compensation-quantifier for the relief figures and deficiency-analyst for a fuller merits test; this skill states the allegation as instructed, it does not independently establish it. Fires for any consumer complaint over goods, services, or an unfair trade practice, in any jurisdiction with a consumer-forum or equivalent process.
---

# Consumer Complaint Drafter

## What this does

Drafts the formal complaint that begins a consumer proceeding: the parties, the forum and why it has jurisdiction, the facts particularised precisely, the specific defect, deficiency, or unfair trade practice alleged, and the relief sought. It states the complainant's case in the form the forum expects; it does not independently establish that the facts amount to a deficiency or unfair trade practice — that is deficiency-analyst's job — and it does not invent compensation figures.

## Before you start

**The facts.** What was purchased or contracted for, and what went wrong — supplied by the complainant. This is blocking.

**The forum the complaint will be filed before.** Pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction rules, and the thresholds that define them, are forum- and law-specific and change over time. Ask which forum is intended; do not assume a specific monetary threshold or forum level from memory. Where the user has not confirmed the applicable threshold, flag jurisdiction as a point requiring verification rather than asserting the complaint is properly filed.

**The relief sought.** Refund, replacement, repair, compensation (with figures, or a reference to a compensation-quantifier breakdown — do not invent figures), and any other specific direction sought, such as stopping a practice. This is blocking; a complaint cannot be drafted without knowing what it asks for.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is confirmed: **the date the cause of action arose**, since consumer complaints are commonly subject to a limitation period running from that date. If not given, note limitation as an open verification point rather than assuming the complaint is timely.

## Method

**1. Classify the claim** — defective goods, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, or a combination — in one line before drafting anything, since the particulars required differ by category.

**2. State the parties precisely** — complainant and opposite party or parties, with full details exactly as supplied.

**3. State the jurisdictional basis** — pecuniary jurisdiction (based on the value of goods or services and compensation claimed, or however the applicable regime defines it) and territorial jurisdiction (where the opposite party resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arose). Do not assert a specific numeric threshold from memory; flag the applicable threshold as a verification point unless the user has confirmed it.

**4. Particularise the facts precisely** — what was purchased or contracted, the price paid, what went wrong, when, and any prior communication with the opposite party about it, including their response if one was given. Do not omit a response the opposite party actually made; leaving it out reads as concealment and it belongs in the narrative either way.

**5. State the specific defect, deficiency, or unfair trade practice alleged, tied to the particular facts** — not a generic assertion that could apply to any complaint of this type. If a fuller merits test is wanted, say that deficiency-analyst is the tool for that and this skill states the allegation as instructed and as apparent from the facts.

**6. State the relief sought, itemised.** Use figures only as supplied by the user or produced by compensation-quantifier; do not invent a compensation amount.

**7. Address limitation.** State the date the cause of action arose if given, and flag whether the complaint appears to be within the applicable limitation period as a verification point — limitation periods, their starting point, and any exceptions are law-specific.

**8. List the documents relied on** — invoice, correspondence, expert report — and flag any referenced but not supplied.

## Output

**1. Header.** Forum (as stated, or marked "to be confirmed"), complainant, opposite party or parties, date.

**2. Jurisdiction.** Pecuniary and territorial basis stated, with the applicable threshold flagged for verification if not confirmed.

**3. Facts.** A particularised chronology of what happened, including the opposite party's response if one was given.

**4. Allegation.** The specific defect, deficiency, or unfair trade practice alleged, tied to the facts stated.

**5. Relief sought.** Itemised, with figures only as supplied or quantified elsewhere.

**6. Limitation.** The date the cause of action arose, and a flagged verification point on timeliness.

**7. Documents relied on.** Listed, with gaps noted.

**8. Points requiring verification.** Jurisdictional thresholds, limitation rules, and anything else resting on the applicable law rather than the stated facts.

## Do not

Do not assert a specific pecuniary jurisdiction threshold or forum level from memory. Flag it.

Do not invent a compensation figure. Use only what is supplied, or reference compensation-quantifier's output.

Do not assume the complaint is within limitation without flagging it as a verification point.

Do not state that the facts definitely amount to a deficiency or unfair trade practice as a settled conclusion. State the allegation as put; deficiency-analyst is the tool for the merits test.

Do not omit a response the opposite party actually gave to the complaint before it was filed.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: deficiency-analyst
description: Tests whether given facts actually satisfy the legal threshold for deficiency in service, defect in goods, or unfair trade practice, working element by element rather than asserting a conclusion. Use this whenever a user wants to know if a set of facts clears that threshold — including phrasings like "does this actually count as deficiency in service", "is this an unfair trade practice or just a bad experience", "test whether we have a viable consumer complaint here", "what's our exposure if a customer alleges deficiency", or "walk through whether these facts meet the test". Can run for either side — testing whether a consumer has a claim, or whether an opposite party has exposure — ask which. Distinct from consumer-complaint-drafter, which states the allegation as instructed; this tests whether it actually holds up. Fires wherever the deficiency, defect, or unfair-trade-practice threshold is the question, in any jurisdiction with a consumer protection regime.
---

# Deficiency Analyst

## What this does

Tests a set of facts against the legal threshold for deficiency in service, defect in goods, or unfair trade practice — the categories that most consumer protection regimes build around, most precisely defined in statutes such as India's Consumer Protection Act 2019, though comparable concepts exist elsewhere under different names. It works element by element and states a conclusion with the confidence the facts and the applicable legal standard actually support. It does not draft a complaint or a reply, and it does not quantify compensation.

## Before you start

**The facts.** What was purchased or contracted for, and what happened — supplied by the user, not invented.

**Governing law.** "Deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" are precise statutory categories, and their exact elements and current judicial interpretation are jurisdiction-specific. Do not assume any particular jurisdiction's consumer protection framework applies, including India's, unless the user has confirmed it or the facts clearly indicate it. Ask which law governs. Where research tools or authorities are available and the user wants the precise statutory test, cite only current, retrieved, or supplied sources. Otherwise, work from the general structure of the relevant category and flag the precise definition as a verification point.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: **which side's question this is** — a consumer testing whether they have a viable claim, or an opposite party testing its exposure. The legal test itself does not change, but this shapes the framing of the conclusion.

## Method

**1. Classify what is being tested** — defect in goods, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, or restrictive trade practice — in one line, since each has a different test and facts can implicate more than one.

**2. State the applicable test only if it is sourced this session or supplied by the user.** Where it is not available, state the general structure of the relevant category as a framework — for instance, that a deficiency in service typically asks whether there was a fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance required by law or contract — and flag this explicitly as a general framework requiring verification against the specific statutory definition and its current interpretation, not as the precise rule.

**3. Map the facts against each element of the test systematically**, stating for each element whether the facts as given satisfy it, do not satisfy it, or are unclear and need more information.

**4. Consider the opposing reading of the same facts.** Do not build only the case for the side whose question this is; note where the facts are genuinely capable of a different interpretation.

**5. Keep deficiency or defect analytically separate from unfair trade practice.** A quality or performance failure is not the same test as one involving a false representation, an unfair method, or a deceptive practice, and facts that satisfy one do not automatically satisfy the other, even where both are alleged together.

**6. State the conclusion with an honest confidence level** — clearly arguable, unclear, or unlikely to be made out on these facts — rather than presenting the threshold as met or unmet with more certainty than the facts and the (possibly unverified) legal standard actually support.

**7. Flag what additional fact or document would materially change the assessment.**

**8. Stop at the threshold question.** Do not quantify compensation or draft a complaint or reply — hand off to compensation-quantifier or consumer-complaint-drafter for those.

## Output

**1. Header.** Facts summarised in one or two lines, category being tested, governing law (as stated or confirmed), side the analysis is framed for (if given), date.

**2. The test applied.** Stated with a clear flag on whether it is sourced and verified, or a general framework requiring verification.

**3. Element-by-element analysis.** A table: Element | Facts bearing on it | Satisfied / not satisfied / unclear.

**4. Opposing reading.** The other side's likely counter-argument or different reading of the same facts.

**5. Conclusion.** Stated with an honest confidence level, framed for the side identified if one was given.

**6. What would change this.** The fact or document gaps that matter most.

**7. Points requiring verification.** The precise statutory definition and its current judicial interpretation, where these were not sourced with confidence this session.

## Do not

Do not assert the precise statutory definition of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from memory. Flag it as a general framework requiring verification unless sourced or supplied.

Do not assume a specific jurisdiction's consumer protection law applies, including India's, without confirming it.

Do not conflate the tests for deficiency, defect, and unfair trade practice. Keep them analytically distinct even where both are alleged.

Do not omit the opposing or counter reading of the facts.

Do not quantify a compensation figure or draft pleadings. Stay within the threshold question.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: opposite-party-reply-drafter
description: Drafts a reply or written statement to a consumer complaint on behalf of the opposite party — raising any threshold objection prominently, then addressing each allegation as admitted, denied with the client's own account, denied for insufficient knowledge, or qualified. Use this whenever a user has been served a consumer complaint and needs to respond — including phrasings like "draft our reply to this consumer complaint", "prepare a written statement denying these allegations", "we've been named as opposite party, help us respond", "raise a jurisdiction objection and reply on the merits", or "draft our defence before the deadline in this complaint". Side-specific — drafted for the respondent, against the complainant. The consumer-forum counterpart to notice-reply-drafter. Fires for any reply to a consumer complaint, in any jurisdiction with a consumer-forum or equivalent process.
---

# Opposite Party Reply Drafter

## What this does

Drafts the opposite party's reply to a consumer complaint: any threshold objection — jurisdiction, limitation, maintainability — raised prominently, then a response to every allegation, admitting, denying with the client's own account, denying for insufficient knowledge, or qualifying, exactly as the client instructs. It structures what the client actually says; it does not invent a defence or a fact the client has not given.

## Before you start

**The complaint being replied to.** The actual text — there is no reply to draft without seeing exactly what was alleged.

**The client's actual position on each allegation.** What is true, false, or partially true, from the client. This is blocking; the skill structures the client's account, it does not construct a defence from the allegations alone.

**Which forum this reply is being filed before.** This affects format, procedural convention, and reply-timing rules. Ask; flag if not confirmed.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on what is instructed: **whether jurisdiction or limitation is being challenged as a threshold objection.** If so, this should be raised prominently and early rather than folded into the allegation-by-allegation response — ask so it can be structured that way from the start.

## Method

**1. Read the whole complaint once before drafting anything.** A global point — lack of jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, the complaint not being maintainable in the form filed — can dispose of several allegations at once, and drafting allegation-by-allegation on a first pass misses this.

**2. Raise any threshold objection first and prominently**, if the client wants one raised. Note that raising a threshold objection does not require abandoning a reply on the merits — a reply can do both, reserving the objection while still addressing the allegations.

**3. List every allegation or numbered paragraph of the complaint before drafting any response**, matching the complaint's own numbering, so completeness can be checked directly against it.

**4. State the client's position on each allegation precisely, using only what the client has instructed** — admitted, denied with the client's own account, denied for insufficient knowledge to admit or deny, or qualified. Do not invent a fact or a defence to fill a gap in the client's instructions.

**5. Where an allegation is denied, give the client's own account of what happened, not a bare denial.** A bare denial carries less weight than a denial coupled with an affirmative account.

**6. Keep factual admissions separate from legal characterisation.** Admitting that an item was delivered five days late is not the same as admitting deficiency in service — concede the fact if it is true, without conceding the legal conclusion the complainant draws from it.

**7. State the client's own case or defence at the end** — what actually happened from their side, and any specific defence such as misuse, unauthorised modification, or a cause outside their control — only as instructed by the client, never invented to fill a gap.

**8. Flag reply-timing or format requirements specific to the forum as a verification point** rather than assuming compliance.

## Output

**1. Header.** Forum, complaint reference, opposite party (respondent) and complainant, date.

**2. Preliminary objections, if any.** Jurisdiction, limitation, or maintainability, stated prominently and first.

**3. Reply to allegations.** Numbered to match the complaint: admitted / denied with the client's own account / denied for insufficient knowledge / qualified.

**4. Client's own case or defence.**

**5. Relief sought.** Dismissal of the complaint, costs, or other relief, only as instructed.

**6. Points requiring verification.** Forum-specific reply-timing or format rules, and anything resting on an unconfirmed legal characterisation.

## Do not

Do not invent a fact or defence the client has not actually given.

Do not concede a legal conclusion — deficiency, unfair trade practice — while admitting an underlying fact. Keep the two separate throughout.

Do not omit a threshold objection the client wants raised, and do not bury it inside the allegation-by-allegation response.

Do not assume reply-timing or format compliance with the forum's rules. Flag it as a point to verify.

Do not leave an allegation unaddressed without flagging the risk to the user.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: product-liability-analyst
description: Assesses product liability exposure on given facts — classifying the defect as manufacturing, design, or warning/instruction, mapping which party in the supply chain is potentially exposed, and grading the realistic exposure. Use this whenever a user wants product liability worked through rather than a general deficiency test — including phrasings like "what's our exposure if this product injured someone", "is this a design defect or a manufacturing defect", "who in the supply chain is on the hook here", "assess our product liability risk on these facts", or "how exposed are we if the warning label was inadequate". Distinct from deficiency-analyst, which tests service and trade-practice thresholds — this is specific to defective products and supply-chain exposure. Fires for any product liability question, in any jurisdiction, for manufacturers, assemblers, sellers, distributors, or importers.
---

# Product Liability Analyst

## What this does

Assesses product liability exposure on a given set of facts: what type of defect is alleged, whether the facts actually connect that defect to the harm claimed, which party or parties in the supply chain are potentially exposed, what defences might realistically be available, and the realistic exposure graded by severity. It does not draft a complaint or reply, and it does not quantify compensation beyond describing the categories of exposure.

## Before you start

**The facts.** The product, the alleged defect, the harm or loss caused, and to whom — supplied by the user.

**Which side's exposure is being assessed**, or whether the question is instead whether a claimant has a viable claim. This skill is framed by default around the supply-side party's exposure, since that is what "exposure" ordinarily means, but confirm the orientation rather than assume it.

**Governing law.** Product liability regimes differ substantially — strict liability statutes, negligence-based regimes, a dedicated product liability chapter such as the one under India's Consumer Protection Act 2019, or a directive-based framework. Do not assume any particular regime applies. Ask, or if research tools are available and the user wants the precise legal test, cite only current, retrieved, or supplied sources; otherwise work from the general structure of the relevant defect category and flag the precise test as a verification point.

Not blocking, ask once and proceed on a reasonable default without it: **the client's position in the supply chain** — manufacturer, component-part maker, assembler, seller, distributor, or importer. Liability allocation across the supply chain is often regime-specific, and knowing the client's actual position sharpens which allocation questions matter.

## Method

**1. Classify the type of defect alleged** — manufacturing defect (this unit deviated from its own design or specification), design defect (the design itself is unreasonably unsafe even when made correctly), or warning or instruction defect (inadequate warning or instructions) — in one line. Facts can implicate more than one category; say so if they do.

**2. Map the facts against the elements of the applicable defect category**, asserting the precise legal test only if it is sourced this session or supplied by the user. Otherwise state the general structure of the relevant category as a framework, explicitly flagged for verification against the specific law that applies.

**3. Identify every party in the supply chain potentially exposed** — manufacturer, component-part maker, assembler, seller, distributor, service provider — and note that how liability allocates between them (for instance, whether a seller can be liable for a manufacturing defect it did not cause, and under what conditions) is regime-specific. Flag this as a verification point rather than asserting an allocation rule from memory.

**4. Assess causation on the facts actually given.** Check whether the alleged defect genuinely connects to the harm claimed, or whether there is a gap or an alternative explanation — misuse, unauthorised modification, expiry, a third party's intervening act. Do not assume causation is established merely because a defect is alleged and a harm occurred.

**5. Note defences potentially available on the facts** — misuse, unauthorised modification, an adequate warning that was given and ignored, a state-of-the-art defence where recognised — without asserting which regime actually recognises which defence. Flag each as a verification point.

**6. State the realistic exposure** — the categories of relief or compensation that could be sought if liability were established (repair, replacement, refund, consequential loss, personal injury damages where applicable, a regulatory consequence), tied to compensation-quantifier's output where figures are available. Do not assert a specific figure that has not been supplied or quantified.

**7. Grade the exposure** using the same three-tier approach used elsewhere in this practice pack: Critical for exposure involving personal injury or safety with weak available defences, Material for a real but contestable claim, Minor for a technical or de minimis issue.

## Output

**1. Header.** Side analysed, product, facts summarised, governing law (as stated or confirmed), date.

**2. Defect classification.** The type or types alleged, with the applicable framework stated and flagged for verification if not sourced this session.

**3. Element-by-element analysis.** A table: Element | Facts bearing on it | Satisfied / not satisfied / unclear.

**4. Supply-chain exposure map.** Which parties are potentially exposed, with the allocation question between them flagged as regime-dependent.

**5. Causation assessment.** Whether the facts actually connect the alleged defect to the harm, and any gap identified.

**6. Defences potentially available.** Listed, each flagged as regime-dependent.

**7. Exposure and grading.** The realistic exposure categories, with figures only where supplied or quantified elsewhere, graded Critical, Material, or Minor.

**8. Points requiring verification.** The precise legal test for the defect category, supply-chain liability allocation rules, and any defence's actual recognition under the applicable law.

## Do not

Do not assert the precise legal test for a manufacturing, design, or warning defect from memory. Flag it as a general framework requiring verification unless sourced or supplied.

Do not assume a specific product liability regime applies, including India's Consumer Protection Act product liability chapter, without confirming the governing law.

Do not assume how liability allocates across the supply chain. Flag it as regime-dependent.

Do not assume causation is established from the mere fact of an alleged defect and a harm. Check that the facts actually connect them.

Do not invent an exposure figure that has not been supplied or quantified by compensation-quantifier.

Referenced files: 1