Australian Consumer Law Case Study
Added on 2020-04-07
7 Pages1544 Words469 Views
|
|
|
a) Is Chong a consumer under the Australian Consumer Law? IssueThe issue is if Chong can be considered as a consumer under the ACL, in view of the limit of$40,000.RuleThe Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is a part of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010.Earlier, this legislation was present in the form of Trade Practices Act, 1974. The definition ofthe term consumer has been mentioned in the Australian Consumer Law, chapter 1. According tothis definition, a person can be considered as the consumer for the purpose of ACL, if suchperson has acquired goods or services for a value of less than $40,000. At the same time, theACL also provides that a person can be treated as a consumer if such person has acquired goodsor services that have a value of more than $40,000, but the goods or services are off the naturethat are generally acquired for personal or domestic use or consumption. An example in thisregard can be given of a person who has purchased a motor vehicle for using in thetransportation of goods on public roads, therefore in such a case, regardless of the price of thevehicle, the person will be treated as a consumer for the purposes of the Australian ConsumerLaw.ApplicationIn this way, it may be surprisingly complex task to define a consumer. But keeping in view thedefinition of a consumer as mentioned above, broadly speaking, a consumer can be described as
a person who has acquired goods or services, and when the price of the goods or services is notmore than $40,000, or when the goods or services are the nature that are generally acquired fordomestic or personal use.ConclusionIn this case, Chong is a consumer under the ACL
b) Did Jason breach any law when he advertised a used truck as brand new? IssueIf Jason has breached any provision of law when he mentioned the fast statement in theadvertisement?RuleAccording to Australian Consumer Law, businesses are not allowed to make incorrect statementsor the statements that may create a false impression. This rule is also applicable to theadvertisements issued by the businesses. Similarly, it applies to the packaging of the product andany information given by the business to their staff or online shopping service. This rule is alsoapplicable regarding the statements that have been made by the businesses online or in medialike testimonials on their websites or through the social media. For example, a business cannotmake the false or misleading claim regarding the value, quality, price or the benefits of the goodsprovided by it. Application While dealing with the question if a particular conduct can be considered to be likely to misleador deceive, there is a need to consider if the overall impression on the conduct can be describedas false or inaccurate. Under these circumstances, in the present case, Jason was involved in falseor deceptive conduct that has been prohibited by section 18 of the ACL.ConclusionJason was involved in false or misleading conduct.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents