Australian Consumer Law Analysis

This assignment delves into the intricacies of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), specifically examining Sections 18 and 29. It analyzes how these sections contribute to ethical business practices, consumer protection, and the overall legal framework governing transactions in Australia. The analysis explores the implications of these provisions for both businesses and consumers, highlighting the importance of compliance and responsible conduct within the marketplace.

Commercial Law

Table of Contents
A) CRAZY JS CASE STUDY AND ACCL STRENGTH........................................................3
B) BAIT ADVERTISING.........................................................................................................4
C) EVALUATION ON Crazy Js CASE STUDY.....................................................................5
D) SECTION 29 VS. SECTION 18...........................................................................................6
REFERENCE.............................................................................................................................7

A) CRAZY JS CASE STUDY AND ACCL STRENGTH
Whether the promotional material would have led people to believe the mobile phone
handsets were ‘free’ or for ‘$0’ and was Crazy J and its staff aware of any additional costs
which it failed to disclose? According to Australian Consumer Law Act 2010 (ACL) (Section
18), In this section company should produce such type of products which is of good qualities
and in regard of consumer protection.
However, it need for organisation to reveal all truth regarding products' services and
charges incurred on it. Under section 18 of Australian Consumer Law (ACCL), rules and
regulations are presented to be followed on for advertisement. In accordance to this, product
price and all schemes are required to be showing off in advertisement. By linking this case, in
respect of criminal case ACCL can claim that organisation does not advertise products
ethically. Therefore, case is considered as against entity thereby rules and obligations are
needed to be followed on customer protection and reducing misleading of advertisement from
firm side. In this regard, promotion of goods and services provided by organisation needed to
showing off scheme for selling handset and higher call rate services.
Including this, it is unclear on the facts provided as to whether the advertisement and
any actions taken by Crazy Js’ or its staff amounts to misguide or dupe conduct as the full
text of advertisement is not included. However in considering the facts provided, it is clear
this was an advertisement made to the public and similar to Talmax Pty Ltd & Anor v Telstra
Corporation Ltd [1997]. " Advertisement of products should be clear like productivity cost,
packaging etc. In this case, unless there was disclosure of any known additional costs, people
may have relied on the free/$0 handset to engage with Crazy Js.
The nature of this advertisement and its focus on the dominant message of free or zero
cost handsets does not excuse the organisation from its failure to disclose additional costs
(even if in fine print). The primary or dominant message in this advertisement is the ‘free/$0
handsets. Even if Crazy Js’ had indicated there may be additional charges in fine print, by
asserting those words prominently, the average consumer could be attracted to enter
negotiations because of the misleading impression created by the advertisement (Australian
Consumer Law, 2016).

Advertisement is considered as false in case of misleading public and their support for
evidence. However, processing related to promoting goods should be effective in accordance
to public evidence and different aspects.
The full Federal court held that the word is just qualified appropriately for which
goods and services produced by organisation may not be free eventually. In the given case
scenario, it is presented that Cj's provides handset at free cost but charges high prices on call
rates therefore for this case free is just a tool advertise product to increasing demand for
purchasing mobile handsets (Federal Court of Australia, 2016).
The Defendant (Crazy Js’) may argue that these statements may be considered as
‘Puffery’ as no one could possibly treat these statements seriously nor do they mislead
anyone as their words only apply to their end of the product sale and that it would be
unreasonable for anyone to expect them to know or have knowledge of a telecommunications
providers intent and that it should be distinguished from Nationwide News because of this
separation of roles. They only sell telephony products but are not responsible for the
telephony services.
The Defendant (Crazy Js’) may also argue that they stand by their advertising and
value of their products. The complaints against them related to advertisements that ran the
previous year and which are no longer utilised. If consumers are confused or unclear
regarding the advertisement then it is not deceptive or misleading. So the statement for
mobile handsets available “free” or for the “$0” was true until last year (Australian
Competition and consumer Commission, 2016).
I would advise Crazy Js’ that the ACCC has a relatively strong case against it and it
should work with the ACCC to resolve this issue as soon as possible to limit damage to its
reputation and brand. Through analysing this case, court decides contact with CJ's for
compensation related to misleading advertisement. In accordance to this, it is needed to cease
advertising for selling handset at free of cost.
B) BAIT ADVERTISING
Bait advertising considers as unethical advertising for promoting products. However,
setting price and creating ineffective ineffective quantities and timing for advertising is
unethical. In this regard, presenting more price and over efficiencies of any goods are against

ethical business operations. It is also known as switch advertising under which online
advertisement and different factors are get affected.
A person who offers goods or services at a specified price must also do so for a
reasonable period and in reasonable quantities, having regard to the advertisement and the
nature of the market. The definition of reasonable supply is dependent on a number of
elements, such as how the product was promoted, length of sale and whether the business
genuinely underestimated the popularity of the product.
Although, there are insufficient facts provided to state with any certainty whether this
would be bait advertising, on the face of it, it appears it may be considered as such. The clear
and dominant statement of having ‘free or $0’ costs for the handsets’ is targeted towards
attracting people to Crazy Js’ and to enter into sales for this product. It is expected that
businesses when promoting products in such a manner will have sufficient quantities to meet
consumer demand. The fact that this is an old advertisement is not a barrier to prosecution if
the Defendant was aware of continuing consumer interest and was aware of the issues
relating to the higher call charges and took no steps to mitigate the risk to consumers like
disclose its old and not available.
Thus, according to case scenario, it is identified that the manner of advertisement for
mobile handset is quite unfair and against consumer protection. There is switch advertising
for promoting goods. In addition to this, showing off all details related to products' price
including service charges. Hence, bait advertisement is needed to be reduced for promoting
goods ethically also impacts on business organisation’s reputation.
C) EVALUATION ON Crazy Js CASE STUDY
According to Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 Act (ACL)disallow
to make wrong misguide statement whether it is on goods' quality, grade standard style or
model or any history. It is planned to save the consumers from presentation which is made
by a person for promotion, supply of goods and services. Dispute changes to increase civil
crime and liable to pay the fine to work with the provision.
Under section 29 of Australian Consumer Law, it is legacy for any organisation to
provide good quality and healthy products to customers for their protections. However, an
organisation should focus upon goods and service qualities for production and supplement of

goods. Moreover, presenting guaranty and schemes are also needed to be presented according
to decided terms and conditions as well additional service charge for exchanging goods.
D) SECTION 29 VS. SECTION 18
Section 18 of Autralian Consumer Act 2010 is related to criminal and civil factors for
protecting legacy and effective security for countries' s people. In accordance to this, various
rules and regulations are provided for reducing crime and unethical issues. It sets rules of
business conduct and is a general protection and is broad in scope. It allows people to seek
remedies for harm caused by breaches of these rules as opposed to criminal or civil pecuniary
penalties (Clive and John, 2015). This section of ACCL states for reducing crime and
operating business activities ethically. Therefore, rules and regulations according to rescue
from crime are provided that is useful for effective business reputation and protecting
consumer from frauds.
While, on the other hand, section 29 of the Australian Consumer law is a provision for
protecting customers. However, effective grievances and civil pecuniary are practices through
this section's regulations. In addition to this, specific rules and regulations are provided for
customer care and their securities. Different laws are obtained for consumer protection and
showing off liabilities of organisation for producing healthy and safety.

REFERENCE
Book and Journals
Clive T. and John T., 2015. Australian Commercial Law , 30th Edition. Thomson Reuters.
Online
Web page or individual document from website:
Avoid unfair business practices, A guide for business and legal practitioners, Australian
Consumer Law. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/library/publications/businesses/fair-trading/avoiding-
unfair-business-practices-word.doc>. [Accessed on 17th May 2017].
Australian Competition and consumer Commission. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-obtains-consumer-compensation-over-
misleading-mobile-phone-advertisements>. [Accessed on 17th May 2017].
Federal Court of Australia. 2016. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/
2004/2004fca0987>. [Accessed on 17th May 2017].