Case Study on Commercial Law (Doc)

Added on - Jan 2020

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 7 pages
Commercial Law
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
A) CRAZY JS CASE STUDY AND ACCL STRENGTHWhether 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 toAustralian 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 amountsto misguide or dupe conductas 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 toTalmax 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).
Desklib Logo
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download or

Become a Desklib member to get access