Business Ethics and law Assignment PDF

Added on - May 2021

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages
BUSINESS ETHICS ANDLAWAUSTRALIA CONSUMER LAWSTUDENT ID:[Pick the date]
Question 1For a transaction to be considered under the ambit of Australian Consumer Law (ACL), it isessential that there must a consumer present in accordance with the definition outlined ins.3(1) ACL. With reference to this section, a consumer may be one who is able to fulfilatleast one of the conditions outlined below (Austlii, 2017).The buying price of the goods that the buyer pays must not exceed $ 40,000; orThe underlying goods that have been purchased by the buyer would be utilised forpersonal or domestic usage and not for commercial purposesThe transactions that have been enacted by Sangita need evaluation based on the abovedefinition of consumer which would highlight if Sangita for the underlying transaction can belabelled as a consumer or not. This would further provide clarity on whether thesetransactions would fall within ambit of ACL or not.Transaction A: In the given transaction, a rice cooker has been bought by Sangita whichwould be used by her Aunt, Shindu. Further, relevant details about the transaction clearlyhighlight that the use of rice cooker would be to prepare food for the family and not anycommercial use. Besides, the price paid by the buyer Sangita for this product is $ 59.95. Inwake of the domestic use and price not exceeding $ 40,000, it would be fair to conclude thatSangita is categorised as consumer for the purposes of ACL.Transaction B: In the given transaction, an electric drill has been bought by Sangita whichwould be used by her uncle, Ramdas. Further, relevant details about the transaction clearlyhighlight that the use of electric drill would be for normal household repairs and not anycommercial use. Besides, the price paid by the buyer Sangita for this product is $ 69.95. Inwake of the domestic use and price not exceeding $ 40,000, it would be fair to conclude thatSangita is categorised as consumer for the purposes of ACL.Transaction C: In the given transaction, an electric toothbrush has been bought by Sangitawhich would be used by her cousin, Pooja. Further, relevant details about the transactionclearly highlight that the use of electric toothbrush would be for personal use of Pooja and notany commercial use. Besides, the price paid by the buyer Sangita for this product is $ 49.95.
In wake of the domestic use and price not exceeding $ 40,000, it would be fair to concludethat Sangita is categorised as consumer for the purposes of ACL.Therefore in accordance with the discussion carried out above, it can be concluded that forthe purposes of the three transactions highlighted, Sangita would be labelled as consumer andtherefore the ACL provisions would apply to these trasnactions.Question 2In accordance with ACL, there are a host of implied consumer guarantees that are extended toconsumers and are contained in s. 51 to s. 59. However, all these are not relevant to theunderlying transactions. The relevant ones are briefly discussed as follows.The goods that are supplied by the supplier should be of acceptable quality as per s.54, ACL (Austlii, 2017). This would mean that the underlying goods must be ofmerchantable quality which has been explained during the case commentary related toMedtel Pty Ltd v. Courtney[2003] FCAFC151 case. The various aspects of this arethat good must not have any defect, must be safe, appropriate for the purpose theunderlying good is normally used and must be acceptable in finish (Gibson andFraser, 2014).In accordance with s.56, the suppliers and manufacture must ensure that the goodsmust adhere to the underlying description that is contained in the product cataloguesand advertisements (Austlii, 2017). If there is any deviation with regards to colour orsize from the description that has been mentioned, then the consumer can get itremedied. Further, the manufacturer or supplier cannot limit their liability by citingthat it was the responsibility of the consumer to physically inspect and verify if theproduct matches with the description or not (Davenport and Parker, 2014).In accordance with s. 55, the good sold must be fit for any specified purpose that theconsumer may have highlighted while making the purchase (Austlii, 2017). In linewith the verdict in theRyan v Great Lakes Council[1999] FCA 177 case. There existsan implicit consumer guarantee on the part of the supplier so supply goods that are fitfor consumer usage when there is fulfilment of the conditions highlighted below.
Desklib Logo
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download or

Become a Desklib member to get access