University Consumer Law Assignment: Problem Question Analysis

This assignment analyzes two problem questions related to Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The first question examines a breach of section 18 of the ACL, focusing on misleading and deceptive conduct by a restaurant owner, Kristof, who misrepresented the sourcing of his food. The analysis applies relevant case law, including *Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd*, *ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd*, and *ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited*, to conclude that Kristof's actions were misleading. The second problem question explores whether Adam can take action against 'Vultures Inc' and Edward under the ACL, specifically addressing unconscionable conduct. The analysis references sections 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the ACL, alongside cases such as *Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron*, *ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd*, and *ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd*, to determine that Edward and Vultures Inc engaged in unconscionable conduct, particularly in their employment services, and that the contract with Adam is void.

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

1CONSUMER LAW
Table of Contents
Week 2 Problem..............................................................................................................................2
Issue.............................................................................................................................................2
Rule..............................................................................................................................................2
Application..................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3
Week 3 Problem..............................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rule..............................................................................................................................................4
Application..................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................6
Reference.........................................................................................................................................7

2CONSUMER LAW
Week 2 Problem
Issue
The issue in this case is whether there was a breach of section 18 of the Australian
Consumer Law by Kristof.
Rule
Under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law enacted by schedule 2 of the
Competition and Consumer Act 20101 it has been prohibited for any person to be engaging in any
conduct in trade or commerce that can be considered as deceptive or misleading or is seen as
likely to be deceptive or misleading.
In the case Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd2 the court had
discussed that for a conduct to be considered as deceptive and misleading there should be an
intention for being deceptive or misleading.
In the case ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd3 it was observed by the court that for the fine
prints used for qualifying the statements in advertisements or contracts, the context as a whole
needs to be generally examined for determining if the statements were sufficiently prominently
displayed. Similar observations had been made by the court in the case ACCC v Coles
Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited4.
1 Competition and Consumer Act 2010, sch.2, Australian Consumer Law, s.18
2 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] 149 CLR 191
3 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54
4 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 634.

3CONSUMER LAW
Application
Applying the provisions of section 185 it can be seen that the conduct of Kristof to not
take a purist approach in following the main idea of the restaurant for serving food that is
sourced from the local area is misleading and deceptive towards his customers.
Applying the decision of the case Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty
Ltd6 it can be observed that the misleading conduct of Kristof was done in an intentional way.
The idea of Kristof’s restaurant is to be serving food that has been sourced from local area, even
the slogan of the restaurant printed on the menu, above the restaurant’s entranceway and in the
advertisement materials is ‘Think Global, Eat Local’. However 70% of the food had been grown
within the radius of 140 miles and the rest have been sourced from further afield which include
international sourcing.
Applying the observations of the courts in the cases ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd7 and
ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited8 it can be said that the short passage written
in the back of the menu explaining the restaurant’s philosophy and the reasons for sourcing the
foods from further afield is not enough as those statements were not ‘sufficiently prominently
displayed’.
Conclusion
Thus from the above discussions it can be concluded that Kristof was in breach of the
provisions of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
5 Australian Consumer Law, s.18
6 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] 149 CLR 191
7 ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54
8 ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 634.

4CONSUMER LAW
Week 3 Problem
Issue
The main issue in the case is whether Adam can take any action against ‘Vultures Inc’
and Edward under the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
Under the general law unconscionability can be defined as per the decision of the judges
in the case Qantas Airwayss Ltd v Cameron9 as not showing any kind of regret. The definition of
the word was also provided in the case ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd10.
Under section 20 of the Australian Consumer Law11 it has been provided that a person
should not be engaging, from time to time, in any conduct that can be described as
‘unconscionable’ under the provisions of the general law, in trade or commerce. This section was
discussed in the case Blomley v Ryan12.
As per section 21 of the Act13 any person, in trade or commerce is prohibited to be
engaging in any kind of ‘unconscionable’ in relation to supply or possible supply of the goods or
services as seen in the case ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd14.
9 Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 56 FCR 246 at 262
10 ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 189 ALR 76
11 Australian Consumer Law, s.20
12 Blomley v Ryan [1956] 99 CLR 362
13 Ibid, s.21
14 . ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd (1999) FCA

5CONSUMER LAW
According to section 22 of the Act15 for the determination of any unconscionable conduct
in the supply or possible supply of goods and services a series of non-exhaustive factors are
needed to be considered. These factors have been discussed in the case ACCC v Keshow16.
In section 23 of the Act17 any consumer contract can be seen as void if the terms had been
unfair and there had been a standard form of contract.
Application
Applying the cases Qantas Airwayss Ltd v Cameron18 and ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty
Ltd19 in the current case it can be said that the behavior of Edward and Vultures Inc is in
violation of the act.
Applying section 20 and the decision of the case Blomley v Ryan20 in the current scenario
Edward can be seen to be engaging in misconduct by fake promising people that they do not
have to pay anything for a course until they get a job. This was found out to be false statement
later.
Applying section 21 and the judgment of the case ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd21 Vulture Inc
can be seen to be engaging in ‘unconscionable’ conduct in relation to supply of the services of
employment.
Applying section 22 and the decision of the case ACCC v Keshow22 it can be seen that the
non-exhaustive factors needed to be regarded have been met. Ahmed is seen to be a 19 year old
15 Australian Consumer Law, s.22
16 ACCC v Keshow [2004] FCA 558
17 Australian Consumer Law, s.22
18 Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 56 FCR 246 at 262
19 ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 189 ALR 7
20 Blomley v Ryan [1956] 99 CLR 362
21 . ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd (1999) FCA
22 ACCC v Keshow [2004] FCA 558

6CONSUMER LAW
who cannot afford to pay any fee for training fee ye was insisted by Edward falsely that he would
not have to pay anything before getting a job, however after signing the contract Ahmed finds
out that the course is for two weeks and he has to pay $20 per week for 30 months beginning
immediately.
Applying section 23 of the Act Ahmed can be advised that he is under no obligation to
follow the contract as he was made to sign the contract under unfair terms. The contract is void
as per the provision of the section.
Conclusion
Thus it can be concluded that Adam can take actions against ‘Vultures Inc’ and Edward
under the Australian Consumer Law.

7CONSUMER LAW
Reference
ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 634
ACCC v Keshow [2004] FCA 558
ACCC v Lelee Pty Ltd (1999) FCA
ACCC v Samton Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 189 ALR 76
ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54
Australian Consumer Law
Blomley v Ryan [1956] 99 CLR 362
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] 149 CLR 191
Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 56 FCR 246 at 262