logo

Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)

7 Pages1867 Words139 Views
   

Added on  2020-01-23

Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)

   Added on 2020-01-23

ShareRelated Documents
Commercial Law
Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)_1
Table of ContentsA) CRAZY JS CASE STUDY AND ACCL STRENGTH........................................................3B) BAIT ADVERTISING.........................................................................................................4C) EVALUATION ON Crazy Js CASE STUDY.....................................................................5D) SECTION 29 VS. SECTION 18...........................................................................................6REFERENCE.............................................................................................................................7
Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)_2
A) CRAZY JS CASE STUDY AND ACCL STRENGTH Whether the promotional material would have led people to believe the mobile phonehandsets were ‘free’ or for ‘$0’ and was Crazy J and its staff aware of any additional costswhich it failed to disclose? According to Australian Consumer Law Act 2010 (ACL) (Section18), In this section company should produce such type of products which is of good qualitiesand in regard of consumer protection. However, it need for organisation to reveal all truth regarding products' services andcharges incurred on it. Under section 18 of Australian Consumer Law (ACCL), rules andregulations are presented to be followed on for advertisement. In accordance to this, productprice and all schemes are required to be showing off in advertisement. By linking this case, inrespect of criminal case ACCL can claim that organisation does not advertise productsethically. Therefore, case is considered as against entity thereby rules and obligations areneeded to be followed on customer protection and reducing misleading of advertisement fromfirm side. In this regard, promotion of goods and services provided by organisation needed toshowing off scheme for selling handset and higher call rate services.Including this, it is unclear on the facts provided as to whether the advertisement andany actions taken by Crazy Js’ or its staff amounts to misguide or dupe conduct as the fulltext of advertisement is not included. However in considering the facts provided, it is clearthis was an advertisement made to the public and similar to Talmax Pty Ltd & Anor v TelstraCorporation 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, peoplemay 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 zerocost 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/$0handsets. Even if Crazy Js’ had indicated there may be additional charges in fine print, byasserting those words prominently, the average consumer could be attracted to enternegotiations because of the misleading impression created by the advertisement (AustralianConsumer Law, 2016).
Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Assessing Legal Compliance of Advertisements: TPG Case Study
|7
|1639
|312

Legal Issues in Misleading Conduct: A Case Study of Rollinstone
|6
|1250
|340

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct in Business Laws
|13
|2462
|451

Fundamentals of Law Assignment
|6
|1268
|46

BUS101 | Introduction to Business Law - Assignment
|4
|439
|215

ACCC v TPG Case Study Analysis - Assignment
|3
|485
|269