Introduction to Business Law Analysis

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleged that TPG's contravened sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by making misleading or deceptive representations in their advertisements. Specifically, the ACCC claimed that TPG's failed to clearly specify a single price for their services and made false representations about the quality and standard of their goods and services.

Running head: INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW 1
Introduction to Business Law
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW 2
The alleged Statutory Provisions
The statutory provisions that ACCC alleged TPG’s contravened were sections 53(e), 52, 53C
and 53(g) of the TPA. It was alleged also that it contravened sections 18, 29(2)(i) and 29(1) of
the schedule 2 under the CCA (Australian Commercial Law). Section 18 talks about misleading
or deceptive conduct. For example:
 s18(1) states that a person must not in business engage in conduct that is misleading or is
likely to mislead or deceive (Australiancontractlaw.com, 2010).
 Section 29(1) says that a person must not, in a trade or in relation to the supplying or
possible supplying goods and services or in relation to promotion by any means of
supply or use goods and services:
a. Make a false representation that goods are of certain quality, standard, value,
composition, grade, or style have had a specific previous use; or
b. Make a misleading representation that services are of a specific quality,
standard, grade or value; or
c. Make a misleading or false presentation that goods are new.
What ACCC said
What the ACCC said about the advertisement that contravened the provisions were:
 That the advertisements were misguiding and deceiving because the difference between
the noticeable ADSL2+service offered by TPG’s at favorable price and the less
noticeable terms meeting the requirements of the offer (Corones, 2014).

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW 3
 That some of the advertisements breached section 53C(1)(c) the Trade Practice Act 1974
9Cth), which is also referred as the TPA. ACCC claimed that TPG’s failed to clearly
specify a single price for the package of the services they offer (Corones, 2014).

INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW 4
References
Australiancontractlaw.com. (2010). Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke. [online] Available
at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/legislation/cthacl.html
Corones, S. (2014). Australian Competition and Consumer Commission V TPG Internet Pty
LTD; * Forrest V Australian Securities and Investments Commission** Misleading
Conduct Arising From Public Statements: Establishing The Knowledge Base Of The
Target Audience. Melbourne University Law Review, 38(1), 281-315.