Consumer Law | Case Study | Assignment

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

CONSUMER LAW1
Part 1:
Advice letter to clients:
Address of firm
Date: 16.07.2019
Reference no: 234
The clients,
Australia.
Dear clients,
Re: Remedies that can be availed against the Veganics Company under Australian Company law.
Thanks for giving us a chance to guide you both about the legal possibilities for seeking
remedies from Veganics company. The present case is to be discussed in the light of the
Australian Consumer Law provided in Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Schedule 2
hereinafter referred to as the Act.
Section 71 of the said Act states that any person who causes the import of any products to
Australia and who is not the manufacturer can be considered as the manufacturer of such
imported products. The provisions related to deceptive and misleading conduct is given under
section 182 of the Act. Section 18 enumerates that no person shall get involved in a conduct
which can be treated as misleading or deceptive or which may mislead or deceive another person
1 Competition and Consumer Act 2010(Cth) s 7.
2 Ibid s 18.

CONSUMER LAW2
to take undue benefits from him. This has been enumerated in the case of Henjo Investments Pty
Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd3. Similar type of observation was seen in the case of ACCC v
Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Ltd4 where on the website of the respondent an advertisement
was made stating that the vaccine given in relation to whooping cough is unreliable, short lived
and not effective. It further stated that homeopathic treatment is a better option. It was held by
the Federal Court that such representation amounts to misleading and false.
In another case of McWilliams Wines v McDonald’s System5, an advertisement of a
hamburger in the name of ‘Big Mac’ was made by the McDonalds. On the other hand, another
company McWilliams Wines in its advertisement described 2 litre of wine as ‘Big Mac’.
Though McDonalds claimed that the wine company’s conduct was deceptive and misleading, the
court held otherwise as it was unlikely that none would be misled by thinking that a McDonald’s
shop was a bottle shop. In another case of Taco Bell of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd 6,
misleading and deceptive conduct issue was raised.
Section 207 states that in trade or business, no one shall involve in any act which can be
considered to be unconscionable. Section 218 further states that no person either in trade or in
commerce related to supply of services or goods to or from a person engage in act or conduct
that is unconscionable. The court by considering the facts of the case will decide whether such
act or conduct is unconscionable as enumerated under section 229 of the Act.
3 Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (1988) 79 ALR 83.
4 ACCC v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1412.
5 McWilliams Wines v McDonald’s System [1980] 49 FLR 455.
6 Taco Bell of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd [1982] ATPR 40-303.
7 Competition and Consumer Act 2010(Cth) s 20.
8 Ibid s 21.
9 Ibid s 22.

CONSUMER LAW3
There are various cases where the matter in issue was determining the existence of any
unconscionable conduct. In the case of ACCC v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd 10,
‘Simply No knead’ is the business trading name whose owner was SNK. It supplied things and
trainings needed for making bread at home. In the case the court held that SNK showed
unconscionable conduct towards each of its franchisees due to its thuggish and bully type
behavior to them.
Again, in case of ACCC v Keshaw11, Justice Mansfield decided that Keshaw was
responsible for taking undue advantage of the inexperience and lack of knowledge of the
indigenous people in the commercial plus educational field and thus conduct was regarded as
unconscionable.
To claim that a conduct is unconscionable, the claimant must show the existence of three
main ingredients as discussed below;
 One of the parties is at a weaker position due to the special disability position or because
of some special disadvantage when compared with the other party,
 The party which is at a better or stronger position must have knowledge about the special
disadvantage or disability of the weak party,
 The stronger party has taken unfair and unfair advantage of the disadvantage or disability
of the weaker party.
In another case of Kavakas v Crown Melbourne Ltd 12, Kavakas lost about 2.5 million by
playing baccarat at a casino located at Melbourne. He further claimed that the casino was
involved in unconscionable conduct. However, the High Court rejected such claim that
10 ACCC v Simply No-Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd (2000) 140 FCR 253.
11 ACCC v Keshaw [2005] FCA 558.
12 Kavakas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25.