Consumer Law Case Study 2022

Running head: CONSUMER LAW
CONSUMER LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CONSUMER LAW
Table of Contents
Week 2 Problem..............................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Rule..............................................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Week 3 Problem..............................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rule..............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................6
Reference.........................................................................................................................................7

2CONSUMER LAW
Week 2 Problem
Issue
The issue in this case is whether there was a breach of section 18 of the Australian
Consumer Law by Kristof.
Rule
Under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law enacted by schedule 2 of the
Competition and Consumer Act 20101 it has been prohibited for any person to be engaging in any
conduct in trade or commerce that can be considered as deceptive or misleading or is seen as
likely to be deceptive or misleading.
In the case Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd2 the court had
discussed that for a conduct to be considered as deceptive and misleading there should be an
intention for being deceptive or misleading.
In the case ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd3 it was observed by the court that for the fine
prints used for qualifying the statements in advertisements or contracts, the context as a whole
needs to be generally examined for determining if the statements were sufficiently prominently
displayed. Similar observations had been made by the court in the case ACCC v Coles
Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited4.
1 Competition and Consumer Act 2010, sch.2, Australian Consumer Law, s.18
2 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] 149 CLR 191
3 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54
4 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 634.