1BUSINESS LAW Table of Contents Question 1..................................................................................................................................2 Question 2..................................................................................................................................4 References..................................................................................................................................7
2BUSINESS LAW Question 1 Issue The issue of this test is to determine whether James has a case for getting a replacement refrigerator under the Australian consumer law. Rule According to the Australian Consumer Law when a consumer buys a product or a service that comes with an automatic guarantee; such guarantee works till the point of time they are promised. Under the promised guarantee period, if the product does not prove to be right then the consumer can derive his consumer rights against such defective product. it is held by the consumer law that the businesses should guarantee products, sold leased or hired for either under $40000 or over $40,000 comprising of things purchased for household or personal use. The consumer law directs the businesses to provide such automatic guarantees irrespective of any other warranties that it gives to its consumers. Consumers have their consumer rights in case the business fails to deliver the following guarantees: a) repair, replacement or refund, b) cancelling a service, and c) compensation for sustaining loss. An automatic guarantee can be claimed from retailer if the product does not meet the standards of the consumer guarantee; however it depends on the availability of the spares parts for repairing the damaged portion of the product. The businesses mostly make excess promises, verbally or in writing, pertaining to: a) the quality performance or characteristics of the goods, b) the importance of the goods and c) availability of required parts of the goods reported for repair or for identical goods to replace it if needed. It is held that even when the warranty period has expired, the automatic guarantee laid down by the Australian Consumer Law to all the goods and services exists. Most often, the automatic guarantee promised under the ACL is operational along with the warranty provided by the manufacturer or supplier in
3BUSINESS LAW case there are compliance issues. If the manufacturer or supplier refuses to execute the claim pertaining to the warranty promised by them, the consumers have a right against such refusal under the consumer guarantees. Application In the given case, the refrigerator bought by James with $1000 comprised of one year manufacturer warranty, let down by the manufacturing company of the product. This by general means would imply that James would not be able to stretch the manufacturer warranty after the completion of one year. However as held by the automatic guarantee or the consumerguaranteelaiddownbytheAustralianconsumerlaw,consumerguarantee continues its application even after the manufacturer warranty or any other warranty had reached expiration date. Therefore, in this case as James approached the department store after a period of one year and two months pertaining to a faulty motor in the refrigerator, the general rule may reject James’s claim; however, by the application of the rule of consumer guarantee or automatic guarantee, James shall be eligible to claim for repair, replacement or refund even after his manufacturer warranty has expired, but the consumer guarantee still remains operational. As per the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, James shall be eligible to claim for repair, replacement or refund as the case may be. Repair is resorted to in case of a minor problem, while the claim for replacement or refund would be entertained in case of a major problem with the product. Conclusion Therefore, it could be held that James shall have a case to get replacement of th refrigerator under the Australian consumer law.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4BUSINESS LAW Question 2 Issue In this scenario it needs to be determined whether Sarah shall have a possible defence against the action brought by Jason. Rule TheCivil Liability Act2003 (Qld) deals with the cases related to tort of negligence taking place in Queensland. To establish a tort of negligence, an aggrieved party or the victim must lay down that another person had a duty of care towards him and there has been a breach of such duty of care. Under the Act, negligence is said to have occurred when the defendant has acted recklessly or callously without considering the circumstances which may cause a probable damage or injury to another (victim or claimant). Chapter 2 of the Act lays down the general standard of care that a person may hold for another, including the breach of such standard of care, causing damage to the victim. To establish the tort in negligence in Queensland the three essential elements of negligence must be established: a) the defendant owing a standard of care towards the victim; b) there has been a breach of such standard of care by the defendant; and c) such breach of standard of care have resulted in a loss all injury to the victim. Duty of care arises in cases where it was possible for the defendant to foresee that his act or omission could likely to cause a loss or injury to the victim. Therefore, whenever a duty of care arises, the defendant is supposed to perform his duty or is reasonable standard of care, as otherwise it would be termed as a breach of duty of care, giving rise to a tort in negligence. It is important to who established that the defendant had a chance to foresee the event that effected the loss or injury to the victim, as otherwise it would be considered that the defendant had no opportunity to comprehend the risk that he might be putting the victim under. Unless it can be established
5BUSINESS LAW that the defendant could comprehend that his actions or omissions is putting the victim under threat of injury, the defendant cannot be held liable for search breach of duty of care resulting in damage. Application In the given case Sarah was driving within the speed limit with at most attention on the road, avoiding all chances of colliding with any passerby. On the other hand Jason was riding a bicycle at night, without any light with him or without carrying any reflective material with him that could identify why him coming from a distance in the dark. This whole approach of Jason riding a bicycle at night without wearing any glow sign to be identified from a distance appears to be risky. On top of it Jason was found to be riding in the middle of the road, on the dark stretch, in the outskirt of Brisbane. The whole setup of riding a bicycle at night without carrying a glow indicator to be identified from a distance in the dark, along with riding in the middle of the road constitutes that Jason was not following the safety rules that one should maintain while riding at night. The approaches undertaken by Jason were not something that could have been foreseen by any person of ordinary prudence, and therefore any accident arising in such situation would necessarily speak about the ignorance and negligence of Jason. Here, Jason’s allegation towards Sarah being negligent while driving, that resulted into collision with Jason would fall flat for Jason can either establish standard of care that Sarah owed to him even after driving cautiously within the speed limit and after paying reasonable attention to the road. Jason would not be able to who established that Sarah had breached her duty of care for she had no duty of care towards him even after complying with all the safety regulations for driving. Sarah had no scope to foresee that Jason would ride a bicycle without caring glow indicator or sign along with riding in the middle of the road in dark.
6BUSINESS LAW However, if Jason in anyway sues Sarah with false allegations, she could hold the defence of contributory negligenceto defend herself from the false allegation of Jason (van Dongen, 2014). She could state that the accident was not her fault alone as Jason was also being negligent for riding in the middle of the road in the dark without carrying a glow indicator to mark his presence on the road. Conclusion Therefore, on the first place, Jason would not be successful in bringing an action against Sarah, and even if he does Sarah would be able to defend herself by the help of the defence of contributory negligence of Jason.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
7BUSINESS LAW References Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2019). Consumer guarantees. Retrieved fromhttps://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer- guarantees#consumer-guarantees-on-products-and-services Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 The Australian Consumer Law vanDongen,E.(2014).Contributorynegligence:ahistoricalandcomparativestudy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.