Case Study about Business Law 2022

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
[#Date#]
[#Your name#]
[#Your address#]
Ms Melissa Rogers
Legal Compliance Officer
Munchkins R Us
[#Address#]
Dear Ms Rogers
Re: The legal implications of
ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2016]
FCA 14721;
ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014]
FCA 14052
We refer to your request for advice regarding the legal implications of the
two recent Federal Court judgments referred to above.
You advised us that you recently established a new ‘Special Suppliers
Club’ and this would require the Suppliers Club to comply with the ACL in
light of the above mentioned judgments.
Our advice to you is based on these instructions.
Advice:
In the case of
ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2016] FCA 14723, the court
has been presented with an application on the basis of the section 21 of the
Australian Consumer Law (ACL) against Woolsworth Ltd. U/s 21 of the ACL
belonging to schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth)4,
empowers the court to consider the matters where a supplier has been
accused for the contravention of section 21 of the ACL while making supply to
a consumer. In this section, the court has been empowered to consider the
bargaining power of the customer as well as the supplier. Section 21 of the
ACL5 requires the supplier to refrain from any conduct while making a supply
in relation to goods or services, which would be considered as unconscionable.
1 ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2016] FCA 1472
2 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets
Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405
3 ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2016] FCA 1472
4 The Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth), sch. 2, section 21
5 The Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth), sch. 2, section 21

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Again, there has been an allegation against Woolsworth of breaching section
18 of the ACL6. Under this section, a person while making supplies in relation
to goods or services needs to refrain from indulging into activities that can be
treated as being likely to deceive or is probable to mislead. In this case,
Woolsworth has been alleged to have indulged into certain unconscionable
conduct in relation to the supply of a range of products. This has resulted in
injuries being caused to the consumers. In this proceeding, the court has
dismissed the claim for unconscionable conduct based on the fact that a mere
brutality while carrying to a trade or commerce would not render a supplier to
have conducted in an unconscionable way. Moreover, there has been a failure
on the part of the applicant to make a request to the supplier to provide
evidence. Again, it has been contended by the court that the claim of
unconscionable conduct needs to be assessed with respect to the totality of
the situation and not merely considering particular events consisting the
situation.
Again, in the case of
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 14057, the court has
been presented with another application on the basis of the section 21 of the
Australian Consumer Law (ACL)8 against Coles. In this case it has been
contended by the court that the conduct that has been exhibited by Coles has
been very serious in nature. Coles has been deliberate as well as repetitive. In
this case, the bargaining power that has been exercised by Coles was not
merely brutal, but it has been misused. Moreover, in this case it has been
contended by the court that the conduct of Coles was not compliant with the
contention of good conscience as his intentions were to deceive and mislead.
6 The Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth), sch. 2, section 18
7 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets
Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1405
8 The Competition and Consumer Law 2010 (Cth), sch. 2, section 21