Case Analysis on Australian Consumer Law and Law of Tort

Running head: CASE ANALYSIS
Case Analysis
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
Answer 1

1
CASE ANALYSIS
Part 1
Issues
There are two issues which are involved in this case. The primary issue which is
whether Ann has any claim against the Salami manufacturer under Section 54 and 138 of the
Australian Consumer Law. The secondary issue is whether Ann has a right against the
Supermarket Pty Ltd.
Relevant rules
The issues in this case can be solved by discussing the provisions of Australian
Consumer Law and the Law of Tort. Consumer law ensures that products or goods which are
sold in the market, should be supplied in the market if it is safe and free from minor defects
and acceptable in the market. Section 54 of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 requires
that goods should be of acceptable quality. The Section provides that there is a guarantee that
a good is of an acceptable quality if a person supplies the good to a consumer in trade or
commerce. The Section further explains the acceptable standard of quality which provides
that a good should be fir for all purposes for which that kind of goods are supplied. In this
respect, a good should be regarded to have acceptable quality, if the consumer is acquainted
about the representation or any other relevant circumstances made of the good by the supplier
or manufacturer. Clause 4 of this Section provides that if a good, which is supplied to a
consumer, does not meet acceptable quality, the reason for not being able to comply with the
provision should be drawn to the attention of the consumer. In the famous case ACCC v
Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 106 it was held by the Court that Section 54 of the
Australian Consumer Law should be applied in a the case. In Norton v Hervery Motors Ltd, it
was held by the District Court that acceptable quality of a good should be determined by
reasonable consumer test regard to the factors listed in Section 7(1).

2
CASE ANALYSIS
Additionally, Section 138 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 provided that
an action can be taken against the manufacturer for the liability of any damage or loss
suffered by a person for a good with safety defect. It is provided that a manufacturer of good
shall be liable to make compensation to a person if the good has a safety defect in it and the
reason for suffering injuries by the individual is the result of safety defects. The individual
could recover the damage he has suffered, from the manufacturer, if the safety defect was the
neglect or wrongful act of the manufacturer. The Australian Consumer Law has conferred
powers upon ACCC to issue notices requiring the production of information or documents.
Civil penalties for the breach of the provision can extend up to A$220,000 for an individual
for every contravention.
Negligent act of the manufacturer can be described by analysing the famous case of
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER 1, where it was established that negligence is the act of
causing careless injury to a person or a property. Where a person fails to oblige with the duty
to care he owes to another person, he shall be deemed to have committed negligence. The
individual should be liable for foreseeable injury which the plaintiff may have suffered
because of his act.
In the landmark case of Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 the likelihood of causing harm
to a person was analysed by the Court. If the injury suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable
by a reasonable person, the defendant shall be liable for causing breach of duty.
Application
In this case, there were negligence on the part of Smallgoods Pty. Ltd. The company
manufactures processed meat products, which itself requires that they should be careful while
making a particular batch of products available to the market. Every product requires to
undergo bacteria treatment process. The product which Ann purchased and consumed was

3
CASE ANALYSIS
not put through the bacteria treatment process and was contaminated. It was the negligence of
the Smallgoods Pty. Ltd. that they did not perform their duty to care and put through the
packaging for bacteria treatment process, which resulted into ill health of Ann. The breach of
duty to care was also contravening the Section 54 of the Competition and Consumer Act
2010. The salami product failed to meet the consumer guarantee regarding product safety.
Finally as a breach of duty to care and supply goods of acceptable quality has been
identified in the case study, the manufacturer that is the Smallgoods Pty. Ltd. can be held
liable as per the Section 138 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Smallgoods Pty.
Ltd. sold the unacceptable quality of salami which made Ann suffer serious health issues. It is
the duty of the manufacturer that if a product does not meet the acceptable quality, the reason
should be communicated to the consumer. Smallgoods Pty. Ltd. failed to do so as well.
Hence, the causation is satisfied and damages can be claimed from Smallgoods Pty. Ltd.
Conclusion
The conclusion can be made thereafter observing the situation had Smallgoods Pty.
Ltd is liable for being negligent to supply goods which are of acceptable quality.
Part 2
Issue
In this present case, the involved issue is to determine whether Ann has any right
against the Supermarkets Pty. Ltd.
Relevant Laws
Under the Australian Consumer Law, retailer can be held directly liable for the loss or
damages that a consumer has suffered from a good which contravenes consumer guarantee
provided under Sec 54 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. If any damage is suffered