Australian Consumer Law Case Study

This solved assignment analyzes a case study involving Betty purchasing an iPhone that did not match the advertised specifications (5x zoom, good battery life). It examines the relevant Australian Consumer Law provisions, particularly sections 18 and 56, which address misleading conduct and statutory guarantees. The analysis applies these legal principles to Betty's situation, concluding that she has potential recourse under consumer law.

Running head: MANAGEMENT LAW
Management Law
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1MANAGEMENT LAW
Answer to question 1:
Issue:
The primary issue of this case is to determine whether the agreement that has been signed by
Susan is valid or not. In the present case, it has been noticed that husband of Susan had
handed over the alleged agreement to her where it has been stated that if at any time the
matrimonial tie between both of them has been dissolved, Susan could get hardly $100.000
and she will not claim more than that. It has further stated by him that if she will not agreed
to sign the same, he will not going to marry her.
Rules:
It is clear from the facts of the case that the provision of duress will be suitable to resolve the
dispute1. The term has been included in the Contract law and it has been mentioned in the
provision that if any act attracts duress, it will cease the enforceability of contractual
liabilities. This provision is used as a weapon to defend himself who was forced to convey
their consent over an agreement the terms of which go against the interest of him. It has been
mentioned under the essentials of contract law that both the party to a contract should have to
enter into the contract with free consent. However, if certain situations cropped up where one
of party threatened the other to obtain consent regarding the agreement and that party forced
to give his consent by putting signature, that will attract the provision of duress. In Australia,
section 50 of the Contract law envisages the provision of duress. The rule regarding the same
is that the consenting party will get an opportunity to terminate the contract2. the rule
1 Faerber, A.E. and Kreling, D.H., 2014. Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television
advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of general internal medicine, 29(1), pp.110-118.
2 Feldman, S.W., 2015. Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Freedom of Contract, and the Economic Duress
Defense: A Critique of Three Commentaries. Clev. St. L. Rev., 64, p.37.

2MANAGEMENT LAW
regarding the same has been applied in the case of Barton V Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27
where the Court has decided to deliver their judgment on behalf of the consenting party and
told to cancel the terms of the contract.
Application:
It is clear from the case that Susan, who gave consent over the agreement, forced by her
husband Tom and it is clear that she had no intention to deliver her free consent over the
contracted issue. These stipulations attract the provision of Duress.
Conclusion:
The case can be concluded with the fact that Susan will get the opportunity to rescind the
contract on the ground of duress.
Answer to question 2
Issue:
The pivotal issue regarding the case is to consider the issue whether Steve is liable to meet
his promise to buy the car that has been made to Jason or not. The main theme of the case
evolved with the topic regarding the promise made by Steve to Jason regarding a car that has
been inspected by Steve for several times. It has been seen in the case that Steve demanded
certain things in respect to the car and told Jason that he will buy the car if all his
requirements are fulfilled. After knowing the fact, Jason had modified the car, installed all the
features to the car, and met all the requirements respectively. However, it has been observed
that Steve on later stage denied to buy the car.

3MANAGEMENT LAW
Rules:
The subject matter of the case has drawn the arena of promissory estoppels and it is a part of
the contracted provision. It has been mentioned under the Contract Act that if a promise has
been made regarding something and the other party relies on the same to that extent the
termination of the promise may affected his interest, law binds the promise maker to keep the
promise3. The terms of the promissory estoppels consist of certain rules regarding the
obligation of the party regarding the promise and it has been stated that the party should meet
all the promise mandatorily4. The term promissory estoppels consists of the general rule and
ethical issues regarding the commencement of a contract that enhance the hand of the law so
that it can forced the promise maker to keep the promise. It has been stated that the grounds
of the promise should have to be legal in nature5. In Crabb v Arun D.C. (1976) 1 Ch 1796 it
was held that the promise maker has to perform as per his statement.
Application:
In this present case, Steve expressed his view regarding the buying of car and made a promise
to Jason that if all his requirements are fulfilled, he will buy the car. Therefore, he made a
promise to Jason. It is clear from the fact that Steve had made a promise and that binds him to
perform the same.
Conclusion:
3 Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA.
4 Kim, N.S., 2014. Situational Duress and the Aberrance of Electronic Contracts. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 89, p.265.
5 Mungan, M.C. and Seidenfeld, M., 2016. Investments to Make Threats Credible, Rent-Seeking, and Duress.
Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), pp.341-351.
6 Richards, J., 2013. Deceptive advertising: Behavioral study of a legal concept. Routledge.

4MANAGEMENT LAW
Therefore, it can be concluded that Steve is legally bound to purchase the car from Jason.
Answer to question 3
Issue:
The primary issues regarding the third question is whether Carl has any responsibility under
the acts of negligence and is there any scope to defend himself here or not.
Rules:
It is clear from the facts of the case that the subject matter of the case has been attracted the
provision of the act of negligence7. The term negligence is a provision under the chapter of
Tort. It has been mentioned under the section of negligence that if a person failed to perform
his duty of care, he will get liable for the offence of negligence. It has also been mentioned
under the rule that the negligent work should have to cause great monetary loss to the other
party. the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 is one of the historical judgment in
the history of negligence and it has been noticed that the manufacture is personally liable for
the negligent acts8.
It can be stated that the act of negligence is malafide in nature and it causes great
injustice to the person who are harmed. However, the person can get certain defence
provision to submit on his behalf and can prove his innocence. The rule regarding
contributory negligence and assumption of risk can be such defence to him. If it has been
7 Lee, R., 2015. Promissory Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel: A Response to the Myth of a Unifying
Approach. King's Student L. Rev., 6, p.iii.
8 Price, W.N., 2013. Legal implications of an ethical duty to search for genetic incidental findings. The
American Journal of Bioethics, 13(2), pp.48-49.

5MANAGEMENT LAW
proved that the victim knew that risk can be taken place out of the act of the defendant, he
will also be held liable for the accident.
Application:
It is noticed in this case that the defendant Carl was an angler and a chef and his friend Harry
used to have the food made by Carl. Carl was not a professional chef and both of them knew
the fact. After knowing the fact, the plaintiff Harry continued to eat the foods made by Carl.
It is clear from the facts of the case that Harry became ill by consuming the foods made by
Carl and it was found that Carl did not know the process of preparing the fish and he even did
not wash the fish well. Thus, it can be stated that Carl is liable under the principle of
negligence.
However, it is also a fact that Harry knew the fact that Carl is not a professional chef
and there can be risk regarding the foods made by him. In spite of the fact, he took the food
and fell ill. Therefore, Harry can be liable for the acts of contributory negligence.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the provisions regarding the contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of
risk can be taken by Carl to defend him.
Answer to question 4

6MANAGEMENT LAW
Issue:
The issue of the case is to determine the fact whether Betty can get any right under the
Australian Consumer Law or not.
Rules:
The issue of the case is to determine the outcome of the misleading advertisement and
statutory provisions regarding the same that are applied in this case. The provision regarding
the misleading advertisement has been mentioned under the provision of section 18 of the
Australian Consumer Act. It is written under the section that if products have been advertised
with certain features and the delivery of it holds different features, the consumer can sue the
product under the ground of misleading advertisement9.
The Consumer law also imposed certain statutory duties on the same and section 56 of
the Australian Consumer law deals with the same. If the goods has not been delivered as per
the proposed feature, and there are sufficient grounds for the consumers to reject the same,
the goods can be replaced by the respective authority10. The policy regarding the R3 (Repair,
Replace and Refund) will be applicable in this case.
Application:
It has been noticed that Betty has regimented for an Apple I-phone that has 5x zoom and has
good battery superiority. However, the phone that she got had certain inconsistency as the
camera was 3x and the battery support was also not that good. Therefore, it can be said that
both the provisions of section 18 and 56 will be applicable in this case.
9 Tamblyn, N., 2017. The Law of Duress and Necessity: Crime, Tort, Contract. Routledge.
10 Robertson, A., 2014. Three Models of Promissory Estoppel. Browser Download This Paper.

7MANAGEMENT LAW
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be held that Betty can get aid under section 18 and 56 of the Australian
Consumer Law.

8MANAGEMENT LAW
Reference
Faerber, A.E. and Kreling, D.H., 2014. Content analysis of false and misleading claims in
television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of general internal
medicine, 29(1), pp.110-118.
Feldman, S.W., 2015. Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements, Freedom of Contract, and the
Economic Duress Defense: A Critique of Three Commentaries. Clev. St. L. Rev., 64, p.37.
Fried, C., 2015. Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Kim, N.S., 2014. Situational Duress and the Aberrance of Electronic Contracts. Chi.-Kent L.
Rev., 89, p.265.
Lee, R., 2015. Promissory Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel: A Response to the Myth of a
Unifying Approach. King's Student L. Rev., 6, p.iii.
Mungan, M.C. and Seidenfeld, M., 2016. Investments to Make Threats Credible, Rent-
Seeking, and Duress. Supreme Court Economic Review, 23(1), pp.341-351.
Price, W.N., 2013. Legal implications of an ethical duty to search for genetic incidental
findings. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(2), pp.48-49.
Richards, J., 2013. Deceptive advertising: Behavioral study of a legal concept. Routledge.
Robertson, A., 2014. Three Models of Promissory Estoppel. Browser Download This Paper.

9MANAGEMENT LAW
Tamblyn, N., 2017. The Law of Duress and Necessity: Crime, Tort, Contract. Routledge.