In-depth Case Study: Business Law - Alameddine v Glenworth Valley

This case study provides an in-depth analysis of the Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd case, focusing on key aspects of business law, contract law, and negligence. The case revolves around a personal injury claim where the appellant sought damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) after an incident involving a quad bike. The analysis covers the issues raised, including the validity of exclusion clauses and the applicability of statutory defenses. The study also explores the doctrine of precedent and the hierarchy of courts in the Australian legal system. Furthermore, it discusses the implications of the court's decision on personal injury claims and the rights of customers under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), along with an examination of remedies available to consumers under the ACL.

0 | P a g e
Foundations of Business Law

1 | P a g e
Part A
Answer 1
The judgement of Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd1 case was given by
the Court of Appeal. In this case, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision given by the
District Court which was given in favour of the respondent. The appeal was accepted by the
Court of Appeal in which the judgement of the District Court was set aside. The Court of
Appeal made a principle judgement while entertaining the appeal in this matter.
Answer 2
It is a civil case which was filed based on violation of principles of torts, contract and
Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The claimant claimed damages from the respondent for
non-economic loss which was calculated as per the provisions given under section 16 of the
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)2 (CLA). The onus or burden of proof in the given case was bear
by the plaintiff or the claimant. The plaintiff was responsible for proving that the exclusion
clause included by the contract was not valid. Moreover, the claimant had to prove that the
defences claimed by the respondent under section 5L, 5N and 5M of the Civil Liability Act
2002 (NSW) are not valid.3
Answer 3
The main issue which is raised in this case was whether the respondent (Glenworth Valley
Horse Riding Pty Ltd) is responsible for paying damages to the claimant (Alameddine) under
the CLA and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)4 (CCA). This issue arose when the
appellant visited the recreational facility of the respondent to ride a quad bike. The
appellant’s mother signed a contract with the respondent in which she acknowledged that
the quad biking a dangerous recreational activity. In this contract, an exclusion clause was
included which provided that the respondent will not be held liable for the loss suffered by
1 [2015] NSWCA 219
2 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
3 Austlii, Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219 (29 July 2015) (2015) <
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2015/219.html?
stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Alameddine%20and%20Glenworth%20Valley%20Horse%20Riding%20)>.
4 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

2 | P a g e
the appellant. The issue was whether the respondent could rely on the defence of the
exclusion clause to eliminate the liability.
Answer 4
The appellant went to the Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd in order to ride a quad
bike. The appellant was an infant; therefore, the contract with the company was signed by
his mother. The contract contained a clause which provides that the riding a quad bike is a
dangerous recreational activity and the respondent will not be held liable for any injury or
damages caused to the appellant. The respondent also put warning signs inside the riding
area. The appellant argued that the respondents were liable for negligence since they failed
to maintain a standard of care which is expected to ensure that the customers are
protected.5 They breach their guarantees given under section 60 and 61 of the ACL in
relations to supply of consumer services.
Answer 5
As per the doctrine of precedent, the judges of smaller courts have to follow the judgement
given by higher courts, especially when the circumstances of the cases are similar. The
hierarchy of courts is important to understand while providing a judgement in a particular
case. In Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd case, the doctrine of precedent
and hierarchy of court was highlighted. In this case, the District Court provided its decisions
based on the judgement of Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd6 case. As per this
precedent, the court held that the appellant did not file a suit against the respondent based
on violation of the contract; instead, the suit was filed for violation of common law duties.
7Moreover, the judgement of Bright v Sampson and Duncan Enterprises Pty Ltd8 and Holroyd
City Council v Zaiter9 cases was also used by the court in order to determine that the quad
biking cannot be considered as a “dangerous recreational activity”. The injury suffered by
the appellant also did not come with the definition of “an obvious risk” as per the
5 Kate Lewins, ‘Cruise Ship Operators, Their Passengers, Australian Consumer Law and Civil Liability Acts: Part
Two,’ (2016) 30 Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ 12.
6 [1991] HCA
7 Bill Madden, ‘Medical claims and the ACL: A few thoughts on exclusion clauses and waivers,’ (2018) (146)
Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 30.
8 [1985] 1 NSWLR 346
9 [2014] NSWCA 109

3 | P a g e
judgement of Lormine Pty Ltd v Zuereb10 case which shows the importance of precedent.
The significance of the hierarchy of courts is clearly highlighted in this case which proves
that the doctrine of precedent governs the decisions taken by the court. Lastly, the decision
of the Court of Appeal prevails over the decision of the District Court in this case which
shows that importance of the hierarchy of courts.
Answer 6
The decision given by the court, in this case, has a significant impact on the personal injuries
claims made by customers in both CLA and ACL. This judgement has a significant impact on
the Australian businesses that rely on exclusion clauses in order to eliminate their liability
arise while providing their products or services. As per this judgements, except in strict
circumstances (which include personal injuries suffered by a party due to reckless conduct),
the customers are precluded from entering into contracts with companies which resulted in
waiving their customer rights given under the ACL. In case the customers have made any
claims under the ACL for breach of consumer guarantees, then the defendant can only rely
on the range of statutory defences which are given in CLA which include section 5M and
5N.11 Moreover, the claim which is made by an appellant for assessment of damages for
non-economic loss which is made under section 16 of the CLA is also entitled for the claim
which is brought under the ACL.
Answer 7
The judgement of this case is fair since it focuses on making the current policies which
protect customer policies stricter. It has become common for companies to rely on
exclusion clause in order to ensure that they did not held liable if they violate customer
policies. This judgement teaches an important lesson that companies cannot rely on unfair
legal practices to violate customer rights. They have to comply with the guidelines which are
implemented by CCA in order to ensure that they do not breach any customer rights. 12 The
Court of Appeal shows that the written contracts which contain exclusion clauses can be
10 [2006] NSWCA 200
11 Caselaw, Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219 (2015) <
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/55b712cce4b0f1d031deb1f2>.
12 Emma Sheehan, He was doing it, so I just followed Ð Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 219 (2015) < https://mccabecurwood.com.au/he-was-doing-it-so-i-just-followed-alameddine-v-
glenworth-valley-horse-riding-pty-limited-2015-nswca-219/>.

4 | P a g e
considered as invalid if they are implemented by companies to terminate their liability arise
towards customers.

5 | P a g e
Part B
1 (a)
Issue
The issue is whether Jake is entitled to get the car or not after giving his acceptance.
Rule
Certain elements are necessary to be fulfilled in order to form a valid contract between
parties. The parties must give valid offer, and acceptance must be received on offer. The
acceptance must match the terms of the offer or else it is considered as a counter offer. A
good example was provided in the case of Entorres v Miles Far East.13 As per the facts of this
case, the claimant made an offer in order to purchase 100 tons of Cathodes from the
defendant. This offer was made by sending a telex. In order to accept the offer, the
defendant sent back the telex. The question arises when did a contract formed between the
parties. The court provided that in order to form a valid contract, the acceptance must be
communicated to the offeror.14
Application
In the given scenario, Minu offered to sell her car for $40,000 to Jake; however, he did not
accept the offer on the spot. Instead, Jake told Minu that he needs some time to think about
the offer. Later, when Jake decided to accept the offer, then Minu already sold her car to
Ken. As discussed in case, a valid acceptance was not given in this case. In this case, the
acceptance was not communicated by Jake on the offer of Minu; therefore, a valid contract
was not formed between the parties as discussed in case.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jake is not entitled to the car since a contract has not formed between the
parties because the acceptance was not communicated by him.
13 [1955] 2 QB 327
14 Peter Walker, Practice Notes on Consumer Law (Routledge, 2013).

6 | P a g e
1 (b)
Issue
The issue is whether Chloe is legally entitled to the reward as promised by Jenny. Another
issue is whether a valid contract was formed between the parties.
Rule
While forming a contract, an offer is different from an invitation to treat. A legally binding
contract cannot be formed based on an invitation to treat because the offeror did not have
the intention to bind by the terms of the contract. Generally, the advertisements are
considered as invitation to treat. However, an exception was given in the ruling of Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball co.15 In this case, an advertisement was posted by the company with
specific instructions claiming that using its products will cure people suffering from influenza
and they will not suffer from the same in the future and in case anyone suffered, then it will
reward the person. Mrs Carlill used the product as per instructions still she caught influenza.
The company denied paying her the reward by providing that it was an invitation to treat.
The court rejected this argument and provided that a unilateral contract formed between
parties.16 In this contract, parties can give their acceptance by complying with the
instructions, and it legally binds the parties into a valid contract. The consideration was the
amount paid by Mrs Carlill for the product.
Application
In the given scenario, Jenny posted a reward notice, for $100, for anyone who found her
phone. Chloe found that phone and returned the same to Jenny. Jenny later changed her
mind and decided not to give the reward to Chloe. A unilateral contract has formed
between parties based on the reward notice. The acceptance in this contract was provided
when Chloe gave back the phone to Jenny. The reward notice was an offer rather than an
invitation to treat; thus, a contract has formed between parties.
15 [1893] 1 QB 256
16 Chris Turner, Key Cases: Contract Law (Routledge, 2014).

7 | P a g e
Conclusion
In conclusion, Chloe is entitled to the reward, and a valid contract has formed between the
parties.
2 (a)
Issue
The issue is whether any remedy is available for Clint under the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) focuses on protecting the rights of customers from
unfair trade practices. The contract which is based on unconscionable conduct is not
considered as valid as per the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). These are referred
to transactions which are made between dominant and weaker parties; therefore, they are
formed based on duress and undue influence. The provision of unconscionable conduct
regarding goods and services is given under section 21 of the ACL. A good example was
given in the judgement of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio.17 As per the facts of this
case, a contract was formed in which poor English skills of the claimant were used to hide
crucial information from the claimant. The claimant was old and had poor English skills;
therefore, they were not aware regarding the content of the contract. The court provided
that their rights given in the ACL are violated based on which they are not bound by the
contractual terms.18 Aggrieved parties have the right to set aside the contract and claim
damages for the loss suffered by them.
Application
In the present scenario, Joe took unfair advantage of the disability of Clint and did not allow
his the change to get independent advice while signing a contract to buy $850 cleaner. The
contract details were not explained to Client, and they were filled by Joe himself. Client is
not bound by the terms of this contract based on unconscionable conduct. Joe has violated
the customer rights of Client given under section 21, and he took unfair advantage of her
17 (1983) 151 CLR 447
18 Samantha Hapburn, Principles of Equity & Trusts (Aus) 2/e (Routledge, 2013).

8 | P a g e
disability to form a contract with him. Client can set aside the contract and claim damages
from Joe as remedy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Client is not bound by the contract formed with Joe, and he can claim
damages as a remedy for violation of his customer rights.

9 | P a g e
2 (b)
Issue
The issue is whether ACCC can take legal action against Talisman Pty Ltd and whether it
could obtain remedies under the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
Section 29 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) recognises rights of consumers
regarding advertisements. This act provides that the companies should avoid making any
claims regarding their products or services in advertisements which are considered as
misleading or deceptive or likely to do so. As per this principle, the court provided its
judgement in ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd.19 In this case, TPG posted an advertisement
regarding its unlimited broadband connection. The advertisement contained large letters
which provide that customers can get this connection by paying $29.99 per month.
However, certain terms were mentioned below the advertisement in small letter which
provides that this offer is bundled with a home rental line for which customers have to pay
extra. The court held that this advertisement was misleading and deceptive and a penalty
was imposed on the company for violating the rights of customers.20 Section 29 of ACL was
violation by the company in this case based on which the court awarded damages to
aggrieved customers as a remedy.
Application
In the present scenario, Talisman Pty Ltd posted an advertisement in which it is mentioned
in large betters that it offers 25-40% off on every item of clothing in October. However, it is
also mentioned below the advertisement in very small print that this offer excludes sports
clothes, underwear and socks. ACCC has the right to taken action against Talisman Pty Ltd
for violating section 29 of the ACL. As discussed in ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd, the company
can be held liable for violating customer rights, and a penalty can be imposed by the court.
Possible remedies include payment of damages to aggrieved customers.
19 [2010] FCA 1478
20 Stephen Corones, ‘Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. TPG Interney Pty Ltd., Forrest v.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission: Misleading Conduct Arising from Public Statements:
Establishing the Knowledge Base of the Target Audience,’ (2014) 38 Melb. UL Rev 281.

10 | P a g e
Conclusion
In conclusion, ACCC can take legal action against Talisman Pty Ltd for violating section 29 of
the ACL and obtain remedy by imposing penalty and claiming damages.

11 | P a g e
Bibliography
A Articles/Books/Reports
Corones, Stephen, ‘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,’
(2014) 38 Melb. UL Rev 281.
Hapburn, Samantha, Principles of Equity & Trusts (Aus) 2/e (Routledge, 2013).
Lewins, Kate, ‘Cruise Ship Operators, Their Passengers, Australian Consumer Law and Civil
Liability Acts: Part Two,’ (2016) 30 Austl. & NZ Mar. LJ 12.
Madden, Bill, ‘Medical claims and the ACL: A few thoughts on exclusion clauses and
waivers,’ (2018) (146) Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 30.
Turner, Chris, Key Cases: Contract Law (Routledge, 2014).
Walker, Peter, Practice Notes on Consumer Law (Routledge, 2013).
B Cases
ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1478
Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219
Bright v Sampson and Duncan Enterprises Pty Ltd [1985] 1 NSWLR 346
Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball co [1893] 1 QB 256
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327
Holroyd City Council v Zaiter [2014] NSWCA 109
Lormine Pty Ltd v Zuereb [2006] NSWCA 200