Claiming Damages for Financial Losses

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
Whether the Angelwings Airlines has breached any of the provisions of the Australian
Consumer Law (ACL). Whether there are any enforcement actions that can be taken by
ACCC and the Courts against the Airlines and any remedies available for Fabio and Greta.
Rule
Unconscionable conduct indicates a conduct having an ultimate degree of harshness and is
in contravention of good conscience.
Section 20 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) has barred any
unconscionable conduct while exercising trade and commerce.
Section 21 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) restrict the person
supplying goods and services from indulging into any conduct, which is unconscionable.
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14: The court has held that in
case the consumer does not have the capability of making a decision that is free from the
influence of the supplier, and the supplier has utilised that position to cause detriment to the
consumer to gain a benefit over the consumer, it would amount to unconscionable conduct.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Keshow [2005] FCA 558: The
supplier has been engaged in an unconscionable activity while dealing with eight indigenous
resident.
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (No.2)
(2000) 96 FCR 491: It has been established in this case that the any conduct that can be
construed to be unfair and not reasonable and which comes under the purview of misconduct,
can said to be an unconscionable conduct. In this context it has been held by the court that it

2BUSINESS LAW
will not limit the conduct within the purview of the legal provision and will consider the
unreasonableness and the oppressive nature of the act.
Glenariff Holdings Pty Ltd v Tah Land Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 132: It has been held that the
court will render any conduct, which has the capability of causing error and is misleading
enough to cause deception, to be unconscionable.
Miller v Gunther and others [2005] QSC 90: The court held that exploiting new arrivals to
Australia commercially utilising their lack of communication skills and experience to enter
into contracts, which are disadvantageous would amount to unconscionable conduct.
Louth v Diprose [1992] HCA 61: The contracts that are an outcome of unconscionable
conduct would be rendered to be void.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd [2013] FCA
350: The conduct of the mobile company in charging a cooling off fee of $75 and a charge of
$195 imposed for the returning of mobile phone even if only the box is damaged has been
construed to be unconscionable. The court has ordered the mobile company to pay penalties
amounting to $455,000 and a suspension and personal liabilities imposed upon the directors
of a mobile company for indulging into unconscionable activities.
Application
In the present scenario, the conduct of the Airlines is to be assessed under the light of the
unconscionable conduct to determine any breach of the provisions relating to the same that
might have caused under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This this respect the
provisions of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) relating to
unconscionable conduct is required to be discussed. Under section 20 of the Australian
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), any person, who has been involved in any
activity, which is commercial or can be construed as a trading activity, is restricted from