Analysis of Australian Consumer Law: Chong, Jason, and Truck Sale

This law assignment analyzes a case involving a truck sale and the application of Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The assignment addresses several key issues: whether Chong qualifies as a consumer, whether Jason breached the law by misrepresenting the truck as new, whether a waiver in the contract violates consumer protection laws, and whether an exclusion clause is enforceable. The analysis references specific sections of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including those related to consumer definitions, false representations, unconscionable conduct, statutory guarantees, and misleading conduct. Relevant case law, such as *Trade Practices Commission v Pacific Dunlop Ltd*, *Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio*, and *ACCC v Valve Corporation*, is used to support the arguments. The conclusion determines Jason's liabilities and Chong's rights under the ACL, emphasizing the importance of consumer protection and the invalidity of clauses that attempt to exclude statutory guarantees. Furthermore, it highlights the implications of misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Answer a
Issue:
Whether Chong is a consumer under Australian Consumer Law (ACL)?
Law:
Section 3 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010- schedule 2 states, person acquired goods
as consumer if amount paid for such goods did not exceed $40000. However, this rule has
exception also which is stated under clause 2 of this section.
As per clause 2 of this section, provision stated under subsection 1 is not applied if person
acquired the goods or held himself out as acquiring the goods:
 For re-supplying the goods acquired by the person.
 For using the acquired goods or transforming the goods in trade or commerce:
 For the purpose of production and manufacturer.
 For the purpose of treating or repairing the other goods and fixtures on land.
Application:
In the present case, Chong purchased the goods for the purpose of his construction business,
which falls under clause 2 of section 3. Therefore, Chong can be treated as the consumer of
Jason.
Conclusion:
Chong is the consumer as per section 3 of the Act.
Answer b

Law 3
Issue:
Whether Jason breaches any law by advertising the used truck as brand new?
Law:
Section 29 of the Act states that, any person while conducting activities in trade and commerce
must not made any false representation related to the supply or possible supply of goods and
services or while promoting the supply or use of the goods and services. This section states
various factors which must not be falsely represented by the person, such as clause c of this
section states that person must not make false representation that goods are new.
Application:
In the present case, while publishing the advertisement related to the truck that truck is brand
new but in actual truck was not new. This can be understood through case law Trade Practices
Commission v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [1994] FCA 1043 (22 April 1994). In this case, trader sold
the socks by stating that socks are made from pure cotton, but in actual socks were not made
from pure cotton. In this Court held that trader breach section 29 of the Act.
Therefore, Jason breach section 29 of the Act because he made false representation related to the
truck.
Conclusion:

Law 4
In this case, Jason is liable from contrive the provisions of section 29 of the Act.
Answer c
Issue:
Whether waiver inserted by Jason in the consumer contract breach any provision of the law?
Law:
Section 21 of the Act states, any person must not engage in unconscionable conduct in trade or
commerce while supplying goods or services to any other person. This provision mainly protects
the person who is considered as consumer under section 3 of the Act.
Section 22 of the Act states, that if person is not able to understand the effect of the document
signed by the person foe supply goods and services, and if supplier fails to disclose the consumer
any matter which affect the interest of the supplier or risk arise to the consumer because of the
intended conduct of the supplier then Court state that person contravenes section 21.
Application:
In the present case, Jason knows that Chong is not able to understand the English, because of
which Jason insert clause in the agreement which excludes his liability related to statutory
consumer guarantee. This act of Jason affects the interest of Chong as stated under section 22.
Therefore, Jason breaches section 21 of the ACL. This can be understood through case law
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio, (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14. In this case

Law 5
also bank fails to provide adequate information to Mr. and Mrs. Amadio, and court held that
bank was also liable for unconscionable conduct.
Conclusion:
Jason contravenes section 21 of the Act by including in unconscionable conduct.
Answer d
Issue:
Whether Jason can use the defense that Chong waive his right related to statutory guarantee by
signing the clause, and whether such exclusion clause is enforceable in nature?
Law:
Section 64 of the Act states, that statutory guarantees provided to the consumer cannot be
excluded, restricted, or modified by any party. In other words, if any party insert any term in the
clause which exclude or modified the statutory consumer guarantees is void and cannot be
enforced by the party.
Section 54 of the ACL provides guarantee to the consumer that goods sold by trader to the
consumer must be of acceptable quality. In other words, suppliers and manufacturers of goods
provides guarantee that goods supplied by them to the consumer is of acceptable quality.

Law 6
It must be noted that defective goods are also considered as of acceptable quality if supplier
disclose all the defects related to the goods to the consumer before the transaction of the sale. It
is also considered off acceptable quality if consumer inspects the goods before purchasing them.
Application:
In the present case, Jason cannot rely on exclusion clause because as per section 64 of the Act
statutory guarantees provided to the consumer cannot be excluded, restricted, or modified by any
party. This can be understood through case law ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA
196. In this case, court held the company liable because company excludes its liability related to
the consumer guarantee.
Guarantee provided to Chong under section 54 of the Act cannot be excluded by the exclusion
clause in the Act.
Conclusion:
Jason cannot rely on exclusion clause, and Chong does not waive is right by signing the
document.
Answer e
Issue:
Whether Jason breaches any other provision of ACL also?

Law 7
Law:
Section 18 of the ACL states, any person must not engage in any such conduct which is
misleading or deceptive nature or likely to mislead or deceive someone. In other words, if any
person while conducting his activities in trade or commerce engages in any such conduct which
misleads or deceives any other person then such person who engaged in any such conduct
contravenes provisions of section 18. It must be noted that if any dealings result in unfair
dealings or wrong doings with other person then such conduct of person is considered as
misleading or deceiving.
Application:
In the present case, Jason engage in misleading and deceptive conduct because activities
conducted by Jason result I unfair dealings and wrong doing with Chong. As stated above, if any
dealings result in unfair dealings or wrong doings with other person then such conduct of person
is considered as misleading or deceiving.
This can be understood through case law ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd. In this case, Court
stated that TPG involve in misleading and deceptive conduct by publishing the advertisement
related to internet services. Advertisement published by company reflected wrong information to
the public and affect the consumer’s interest.
Conclusion:
Jason also breaches provisions of section 18 by indulging in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Law 8
References:
ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA
629 (15 June 2012).
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio, (1983) 151 CLR 447.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 18.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 21.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 22.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 29.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 3.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 54.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010- Schedule 2- section 64.
Trade Practices Commission v Pacific Dunlop Ltd [1994] FCA 1043 (22 April 1994).