Introduction to Business Law - ILAC Question and Short Response

This article discusses an ILAC question related to the Australian Consumer Law and provides a short response to questions related to Torres Strait Islander land rights and native titles. The ILAC question discusses whether Gym & Tonic can enforce a cancellation fee and whether any provisions of the Australian Consumer Law are violated. The short response covers questions related to the Torres Strait Islander land rights, native titles, and the act introduced after the Mabo case.

0
Introduction to Business Law

1
Hypothetical ILAC Question
I: Issue
Whether Gym & Tonic can enforce Karen to pay back the $100
cancellation fee as per the terms of the contract? Whether any provisions
of the Australia Consumer Law is violated by Gym & Tonic, and if so, did
Karen have any remedies available?
L: Law
The Australian Consumer Law has been established by the Australian
government to ensure that corporations operating in the company did not
violate the rights of customers and provided them high-quality products
and services. In order to implement these regulations on individuals, the
government has enacted the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
which applies to all territories of Australia. Based on the guidelines of this
act, the corporations are prohibited from engaging in any trade or
commerce related conducted which is misleading or deceptive as given
under section 18. Furthermore, the act provides that while advertising
their products, the corporation should not make false claims regarding
their products or services to induce customers into buying them. A
company can be held liable under section 29 in case an advertisement is
posted by the company which is a misleading or deceptive advertisement
or likely to mislead or deceive.
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty
Ltd (2013) HCA 54 case, the court held the company liable for violating
section 18 and 29 of the act. In this case, a company advertised that it is
giving ADSL2+ unlimited broadband for $29.99 monthly. A notice is also
written in the advertisement in small print which provided that this offer is
only available for customers who have a home line rental which costs $30
monthly. The court provided that the advertisement of the company is
misleading and deceptive and imposed a penalty on the company. As per
the guidelines of the common law, a contract becomes voidable which is
formed based on misrepresentation, and it can be set aside. The remedies
available for parties include rescission, specific performance, repudiation,
damages, and injunction.
A: Application
Karen got the gym membership based on the advertisement of Gym &
Tonic in which the company depicted that it is giving unlimited access to
the entire gym for $30 rather than $60. This advertisement was false
since access was only available to weight equipment and the original
monthly gym membership was for $40. Gym & Tonic has breached section
18 and 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act based on which the court
can impose a penalty on the company. Karen can rescind the contract
since it is voidable, and she can demand damages as the remedy.

2
C: Conclusion
To conclude, Gym & Tonic cannot enforce Karen to pay $100 cancellation
fee because the contract is voidable which can be set aside by Karen.
Section 18 and 29 has violated by Gym & Tonic, and Karen can demand
damages.

3
Short Response Question
Question 1
The island name is Torres Strait Island which is in Queensland, Australia
and the name of aboriginal people is Torres Strait Islander.
Question 2
Based on the judgement given in the Mabo case, the claimants receive
their land rights. These rights depend on traditional laws and customs of
those people who are claiming the title. The court provided these rights
under the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991. The land rights established
from the birth which include freehold and perpetual lease titles. The
procedure for transferring, claiming and granting the land rights is also
established by the court. Justice Brennan provided that after the
abandoning of the traditional customs and laws the foundation of native
titles was disappeared which happened when the British took the lands
from aboriginal people.
Question 3
According to Graeme Neate, the land rights are given from the birth
whereas the native titles are given by the Australian government based
on the traditions and customs of aboriginal people. Land rights are
considered as a birthright because aboriginal people did not sell their
land, instead, they belong to the land, and they consider themselves
responsible for protecting the land. For example, the land rights give the
authority to aboriginal people to block mining on their lands, whereas, the
native title gives them the right to negotiate.
Question 4
The act which was introduced after the Mabo case is the Native Title Act
1993 (Cth). In Wik decision, it was held that the native titles of aboriginal
people coexist with pastoral leases which prevail in case of inconsistency.
Question 5
Twelve years passed between the claim and final decision of the native
title claim of Yorta Yorta people. They were unsuccessful because their
traditions and customs were lost due to the time and the High Court made
it more complicated to claim for native titles by implementing strict
requirements.