Competition and Consumer Law Case Studies

This article discusses case studies related to Competition and Consumer Law and explores relevant sections of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010. It covers topics such as civil penalty related to cartel conduct, actions that can be taken against BCC and IGA, and analysis of the conduct of Active Diva and its directors under the Australian Consumer Law. The article also highlights the consequences of breaching the provisions of chapter IV of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010.

Running head: COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
CASE STUDIES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
Table of Contents
Topic 7:............................................................................................................................................2
Topic 8:............................................................................................................................................3
TOPIC 9...........................................................................................................................................4
Answer to question 1...................................................................................................................4
Answer to question 2...................................................................................................................5

2COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
Topic 7:
1. As per the relevant sections of 45AA and 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 the
Glowing Health Drinks (GHD) can take a few specific actions against BBC. The Rule or the
legislation therefore states and discusses the provisions of civil penalty related to the cartel
conduct. It further states that an organization or a corporation should not make or give any kind
of effect to the contract that is formed based on the contents of a cartel provision. The cartel
provision further focuses on allocating customers, price-fixing and suppliers that are in
competition with each other. Thus, in the given scenario, it has been observed that due to the late
supply and low price of their product named Choke, GHD had struggled and suffered to maintain
their business. However, in such circumstances, section 44AA of the above mentioned act can be
applied. This is because due to the decision of the price change done by Bud and against the
policy of BBC, there was a initial loss and sufferance of GHD. Therefore, it can be concluded
stating that being a local manufacturer, GHD can take under the Competition and Consumer Act,
2010 against BCC.
2. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can take actions against BCC
and depending on the circumstances, the Court will apply the abovementioned related sections of
the act. The Federal Court can either dismiss the claim or ask the manufacturers or the parties for
compensation if the conduct of BCC had constituted the method of price fixing. If the situation
further shows that due to the activities of Bud, loss was suffered by the other party. Therefore,
the Court can apply the relevant section is this situation when due to the manufacturer, the loss is
suffered by the retailers and the customers based on the sections 44AA and 45 of the above

3COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
mentioned act. This principle has been mentioned in Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission v Link Solutions Pty Limited (No 3) [2012] FCA 348.
3. Apart from BCC, another entity that can take actions based under the Competition and
Consumer Act, 2010 is IGA. This is because IGA had suffered loss because it had agreed to sell
their drinks nationwide with the help of BCC manufacturer. IGA got disappointed after investing
the money and asking for help from Big Cola Co. BCC was out of stock of the most sold drink
because they were out of stock. Hence, based on this scenario, the possible actions can be taken
by IGA against BCC with the relevant provisions of the act. Application for section 45 has been
confirmed in News Ltd v South Sydney RLFC (2003).
Topic 8:
1. The issue in this situation is whether GHD can take any actions under the Competition and
Consumer Act, 2001 against BCC based on the relevant sections of 46 and 47. The rule however
states that an organization has the authority to control the market goods and services that should
not be in advantage of the power as related to the market. A corporation under this act has the
power to substantially damage the competitor in the market and prevent the entry of another
individual into the market. As per the facts of the case, it can be said that GHD had suffered
damage because of the delay of the delivery of products that were suppose to get provided by
BCC. However, the particular section of 46 will be applicable in this situation.
2. The related issue of this scenario is whether the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission can take any kind of actions the BCC. From the given facts of the scenario, the
Court will apply the Competition and Consumer Act, 2001. This section states and deals with the
situation where a corporation associates itself in the practice of supplying or allowing or the

4COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
goods and services. If in case the organization will not do it except to a limited extent then the
Court will apply the section 47 of the above mentioned act. However, it can be said that the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission lays down these two relevant sections,
which governs the concept of a situation when GDH can apply the relevant section and ask for
compensation.
3. The other entity in this situation cannot take any reasonable actions as per the mentioned
sections of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2001. However, GHD was not the only
manufacturer who had suffered the loss being the only retailer who has relied on BCC. IGA was
the other retailer who had relied on the manufacturing process of BCC. In order to begin the
manufacturing process, Bud had with key suppliers of coconut water and stevia in Australia.
Therefore, he had informed them that he was going to require large amounts of their product. He
had warned them that he will immediately stop all dealings with them if they continue to supply
their products to GHD. However, as per these two sections, only GHD can take possible actions
under the CCA.
TOPIC 9
Answer to question 1
The main facts of the case are based on the Australian Competition and Consumer Act.
According to this case, Active Diva sells its products on the women’s wear and become a
profitable company within a small span of time. Leena Jane and Rockstar Sport controlled the
market of the company. Diana was the national marketing manager for the company and deals
with all the marketing analysis for the company. For the betterment of the company, the two
directors have held a meeting and decided not to sale their products with discount. Further, they

5COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
have ordered Giant shop and Cornucopia shop to stop selling their products. It has been observed
from the case that niece of Diana has started up a business of similar kind and asked Diana for
help. Diana has informed all the retailers to supply products of Active Diva to those who will
buy the products of her niece’s shop. The main issues of the case are:
 Whether Diana has attracted the provision of section 18 of Australian Consumer Law or
not;
 Whether the decisions took by Leena and Rockstar has been analyzed under section 93 of
the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) or not;
 Whether the acts of the reseller has contravened section 48 of the ACC Act 2010 or not
This mentality of Diana attracts section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, as the nature of
the conduct made by Diana was deceptive. Under this section, the affected party and Australian
Competition and Consumer authority could take action against the offender. Similar principle
has been followed in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet
Pty Lt. [2013] HCA 54. Further, the nature of the statement made by Diana in this context is
unconscionable and this could be banned under section 21 of the consumer law. Further, it is an
unfair practice because there is no relation between the products of Active Diva and products of
Diana’s niece. Further, the decision made by Leena Jane and Rockstar Sport should be analyzed
under section 93 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It is required to
be determined whether the decision has been made for the benefit of public at large or not.
Further, a matter of resale price maintenance could be applied in the case of a shop who has sold
the products of the Active Diva in a much lower price (30% less than the RRP). According to
section 48 of ACCA 2010, no reseller is allowed to sale a product below the minimum price.
This principle has been established in Re Heating Centre Pty Limited v Trade Practices

6COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW
Commission [1986] FCA 73. The Australian Consumer Court can take action against Diana,
Leena, Rockstar and the reseller for making violence regarding those sections of the Australian
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Answer to question 2
Considering the acts done by the characters of the case, it can be stated that their
conducts have attracted the provision of chapter IV of the Australian Competition and Consumer
Act 2010 (Cth). If any person makes any breach by misusing the market power, reselling the
price maintenance and commits exclusionary conduct, they will be held liable for the offence
mentioned under chapter IV of the Act and monetary penalties will be imposed on them. Further,
an infringement notice could be served to the wrongdoers by ACCC. In case of non-compliance,
the offenders may have to face penalties under section 155 of the Act. Further, the offender could
have to go jail for non-compliance. According to section 76 of the Competition and Consumer
Act 2010, pecuniary penalties will be imposed on the parties. Further, injunction regarding the
cats of the offender could be imposed under section 80 of the Act 2010. If it has been proved that
the directors of Active Diva had failed to act for the best interest of the public, they could be
disqualified from their directorship under section 86E of the Act 2010.