BUS503 BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS: case study
Added on 2023-01-19
9 Pages2237 Words60 Views
|
|
|
Running Head: BUS503 1
BUS503 BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS: case study
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date
BUS503 BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS: case study
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date
BUS503 2
Introduction
Advertising and selling practices have evolved rapidly over the years. These practices
do not occur solely through newspapers, televisions or billboards. Nowadays, these activities
occurs through brand names or the online environment. Businesses that operate using names
similar to other businesses have the obligation to justify their position as to whether the name
is not misleading (Faure, Ogus, & Philipsen, 2007). Nowadays, businesses are forced to
ensure that their sale practices are in accordance with the ACL act. Good sale practices lead
to consumer satisfaction and a more successful business. The rights and responsibilities set
out in section 18 of the ACL Act are aimed at ensuring businesses are operating on a
fairground and selling quality products and services to consumers.
Discussion
When deciding whether William Abong's conducts are misleading or deceptive, the
most fundamental question is whether the overall impression created by his new brand name
is false or inaccurate. While William Abong is not required to disclose any information in all
circumstances, “Billabong Limited” should seek further information to avoid any allegations
of misleading customers. He should disclose further details of the name to Billabong
Australia Ltd since it is likely that William’s conducts are creating a misleading impression to
the consumers.
Section 18(1) of the ACL indicates that persons or corporations must not involve
themselves in business conducts that are deemed confusing or deceptive, or are likely to
mislead or deceive consumers (Australian Consumer Law, 67). Further, beyond applying to
all persons generally, this sections is also applicable as a commonwealth statute to the
conduct of businesses (s18 (2), ACL). That being said, the section simply imposes the
necessary standards on the market place. Further remedies such as injunctions, rescission of
Introduction
Advertising and selling practices have evolved rapidly over the years. These practices
do not occur solely through newspapers, televisions or billboards. Nowadays, these activities
occurs through brand names or the online environment. Businesses that operate using names
similar to other businesses have the obligation to justify their position as to whether the name
is not misleading (Faure, Ogus, & Philipsen, 2007). Nowadays, businesses are forced to
ensure that their sale practices are in accordance with the ACL act. Good sale practices lead
to consumer satisfaction and a more successful business. The rights and responsibilities set
out in section 18 of the ACL Act are aimed at ensuring businesses are operating on a
fairground and selling quality products and services to consumers.
Discussion
When deciding whether William Abong's conducts are misleading or deceptive, the
most fundamental question is whether the overall impression created by his new brand name
is false or inaccurate. While William Abong is not required to disclose any information in all
circumstances, “Billabong Limited” should seek further information to avoid any allegations
of misleading customers. He should disclose further details of the name to Billabong
Australia Ltd since it is likely that William’s conducts are creating a misleading impression to
the consumers.
Section 18(1) of the ACL indicates that persons or corporations must not involve
themselves in business conducts that are deemed confusing or deceptive, or are likely to
mislead or deceive consumers (Australian Consumer Law, 67). Further, beyond applying to
all persons generally, this sections is also applicable as a commonwealth statute to the
conduct of businesses (s18 (2), ACL). That being said, the section simply imposes the
necessary standards on the market place. Further remedies such as injunctions, rescission of
BUS503 3
contract among other actions can be found elsewhere in the act and thus this piece has had a
significant impact on Australian business. It has produced a wide range of case laws and
although section 18 appears in the ACL, this section is not limited to consumer trades or
dealings (Paterson, & Brody, 2015). Most of the cases on misleading conducts like the case
of William Abong and Billabong Australia Ltd are often business-business cases. This is a
fundamental law that can be used by consumers when they have been persuaded by a seller to
purchase a certain product that later turns out to be inaccurate. The available remedies for
misleading conducts are in addition, independent in case consumer guarantees are breached
(Hodges, 2015).
The concept of misleading or deceptive conducts in the case of William Abong and
Billabong Australia Ltd is taken at face value by court. Misleading conducts necessitate an
objective to deceive and so is of little importance because proving evidence of fraud in court
is a bit challenging. However, misleading as in this case does not require intentions or a
certain state of mind from the key actor. In fact, the restrictions of misleading conducts
impose huge liabilities not to knowingly or unknowingly lead others into errors through any
form of commercial transactions. This explicitly provides that an innocent brand name might
generate liability.
In the case of “William Abong” and “Billabong Australia Ltd”, it is not justifiable for
William Abong to use the name on the fact that both businesses are in the same industry.
Remember, the guiding principles under the Australia Consumer law section 18 (2) “do not
confuse the consumers.” Therefore, it is very likely that the consumers of Billabong Australia
Ltd will be confused because they have almost similar names. One of the key factors to
examine is the possibility of consumer confusion and whether the two businesses are in the
same industry. In this case, the two businesses are in the same industry but dealing with
different consumer products. A good example is the case of Apple Corps v. Apple Inc. These
contract among other actions can be found elsewhere in the act and thus this piece has had a
significant impact on Australian business. It has produced a wide range of case laws and
although section 18 appears in the ACL, this section is not limited to consumer trades or
dealings (Paterson, & Brody, 2015). Most of the cases on misleading conducts like the case
of William Abong and Billabong Australia Ltd are often business-business cases. This is a
fundamental law that can be used by consumers when they have been persuaded by a seller to
purchase a certain product that later turns out to be inaccurate. The available remedies for
misleading conducts are in addition, independent in case consumer guarantees are breached
(Hodges, 2015).
The concept of misleading or deceptive conducts in the case of William Abong and
Billabong Australia Ltd is taken at face value by court. Misleading conducts necessitate an
objective to deceive and so is of little importance because proving evidence of fraud in court
is a bit challenging. However, misleading as in this case does not require intentions or a
certain state of mind from the key actor. In fact, the restrictions of misleading conducts
impose huge liabilities not to knowingly or unknowingly lead others into errors through any
form of commercial transactions. This explicitly provides that an innocent brand name might
generate liability.
In the case of “William Abong” and “Billabong Australia Ltd”, it is not justifiable for
William Abong to use the name on the fact that both businesses are in the same industry.
Remember, the guiding principles under the Australia Consumer law section 18 (2) “do not
confuse the consumers.” Therefore, it is very likely that the consumers of Billabong Australia
Ltd will be confused because they have almost similar names. One of the key factors to
examine is the possibility of consumer confusion and whether the two businesses are in the
same industry. In this case, the two businesses are in the same industry but dealing with
different consumer products. A good example is the case of Apple Corps v. Apple Inc. These
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents