CO5119 Business Law Assignment: Tort, Agency and Property Law

This business law assignment solution addresses two key legal scenarios. The first question analyzes a consumer law case, determining whether a consumer (James) is entitled to a refrigerator replacement under Australian Consumer Law, considering manufacturer warranties and consumer guarantees. The second question examines a tort law case, where it needs to be determined whether Sarah has a valid defense against Jason's negligence claim following a bicycle accident. The solution explores the elements of negligence, including duty of care, breach, and causation, and considers the applicability of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The analysis also considers the concept of contributory negligence, and whether Jason's actions impacted the outcome. The document provides a thorough understanding of the legal principles involved and applies them to the facts of each case, offering reasoned conclusions.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Question 1..................................................................................................................................2
Question 2..................................................................................................................................4
References..................................................................................................................................7

2BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
The issue of this test is to determine whether James has a case for getting a
replacement refrigerator under the Australian consumer law.
Rule
According to the Australian Consumer Law when a consumer buys a product or a
service that comes with an automatic guarantee; such guarantee works till the point of time
they are promised. Under the promised guarantee period, if the product does not prove to be
right then the consumer can derive his consumer rights against such defective product. it is
held by the consumer law that the businesses should guarantee products, sold leased or hired
for either under $40000 or over $40,000 comprising of things purchased for household or
personal use. The consumer law directs the businesses to provide such automatic guarantees
irrespective of any other warranties that it gives to its consumers. Consumers have their
consumer rights in case the business fails to deliver the following guarantees: a) repair,
replacement or refund, b) cancelling a service, and c) compensation for sustaining loss.
An automatic guarantee can be claimed from retailer if the product does not meet the
standards of the consumer guarantee; however it depends on the availability of the spares
parts for repairing the damaged portion of the product. The businesses mostly make excess
promises, verbally or in writing, pertaining to: a) the quality performance or characteristics of
the goods, b) the importance of the goods and c) availability of required parts of the goods
reported for repair or for identical goods to replace it if needed. It is held that even when the
warranty period has expired, the automatic guarantee laid down by the Australian Consumer
Law to all the goods and services exists. Most often, the automatic guarantee promised under
the ACL is operational along with the warranty provided by the manufacturer or supplier in

3BUSINESS LAW
case there are compliance issues. If the manufacturer or supplier refuses to execute the claim
pertaining to the warranty promised by them, the consumers have a right against such refusal
under the consumer guarantees.
Application
In the given case, the refrigerator bought by James with $1000 comprised of one year
manufacturer warranty, let down by the manufacturing company of the product. This by
general means would imply that James would not be able to stretch the manufacturer
warranty after the completion of one year. However as held by the automatic guarantee or the
consumer guarantee laid down by the Australian consumer law, consumer guarantee
continues its application even after the manufacturer warranty or any other warranty had
reached expiration date.
Therefore, in this case as James approached the department store after a period of one
year and two months pertaining to a faulty motor in the refrigerator, the general rule may
reject James’s claim; however, by the application of the rule of consumer guarantee or
automatic guarantee, James shall be eligible to claim for repair, replacement or refund even
after his manufacturer warranty has expired, but the consumer guarantee still remains
operational.
As per the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, James shall be eligible to
claim for repair, replacement or refund as the case may be. Repair is resorted to in case of a
minor problem, while the claim for replacement or refund would be entertained in case of a
major problem with the product.
Conclusion
Therefore, it could be held that James shall have a case to get replacement of th
refrigerator under the Australian consumer law.

4BUSINESS LAW
Question 2
Issue
In this scenario it needs to be determined whether Sarah shall have a possible defence
against the action brought by Jason.
Rule
The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) deals with the cases related to tort of negligence
taking place in Queensland. To establish a tort of negligence, an aggrieved party or the victim
must lay down that another person had a duty of care towards him and there has been a
breach of such duty of care. Under the Act, negligence is said to have occurred when the
defendant has acted recklessly or callously without considering the circumstances which may
cause a probable damage or injury to another (victim or claimant). Chapter 2 of the Act lays
down the general standard of care that a person may hold for another, including the breach of
such standard of care, causing damage to the victim.
To establish the tort in negligence in Queensland the three essential elements of
negligence must be established: a) the defendant owing a standard of care towards the victim;
b) there has been a breach of such standard of care by the defendant; and c) such breach of
standard of care have resulted in a loss all injury to the victim. Duty of care arises in cases
where it was possible for the defendant to foresee that his act or omission could likely to
cause a loss or injury to the victim. Therefore, whenever a duty of care arises, the defendant
is supposed to perform his duty or is reasonable standard of care, as otherwise it would be
termed as a breach of duty of care, giving rise to a tort in negligence. It is important to who
established that the defendant had a chance to foresee the event that effected the loss or injury
to the victim, as otherwise it would be considered that the defendant had no opportunity to
comprehend the risk that he might be putting the victim under. Unless it can be established

5BUSINESS LAW
that the defendant could comprehend that his actions or omissions is putting the victim under
threat of injury, the defendant cannot be held liable for search breach of duty of care resulting
in damage.
Application
In the given case Sarah was driving within the speed limit with at most attention on
the road, avoiding all chances of colliding with any passerby. On the other hand Jason was
riding a bicycle at night, without any light with him or without carrying any reflective
material with him that could identify why him coming from a distance in the dark. This
whole approach of Jason riding a bicycle at night without wearing any glow sign to be
identified from a distance appears to be risky. On top of it Jason was found to be riding in the
middle of the road, on the dark stretch, in the outskirt of Brisbane. The whole setup of riding
a bicycle at night without carrying a glow indicator to be identified from a distance in the
dark, along with riding in the middle of the road constitutes that Jason was not following the
safety rules that one should maintain while riding at night. The approaches undertaken by
Jason were not something that could have been foreseen by any person of ordinary prudence,
and therefore any accident arising in such situation would necessarily speak about the
ignorance and negligence of Jason.
Here, Jason’s allegation towards Sarah being negligent while driving, that resulted
into collision with Jason would fall flat for Jason can either establish standard of care that
Sarah owed to him even after driving cautiously within the speed limit and after paying
reasonable attention to the road. Jason would not be able to who established that Sarah had
breached her duty of care for she had no duty of care towards him even after complying with
all the safety regulations for driving. Sarah had no scope to foresee that Jason would ride a
bicycle without caring glow indicator or sign along with riding in the middle of the road in
dark.

6BUSINESS LAW
However, if Jason in anyway sues Sarah with false allegations, she could hold the defence of
contributory negligence to defend herself from the false allegation of Jason (van Dongen,
2014). She could state that the accident was not her fault alone as Jason was also being
negligent for riding in the middle of the road in the dark without carrying a glow indicator to
mark his presence on the road.
Conclusion
Therefore, on the first place, Jason would not be successful in bringing an action
against Sarah, and even if he does Sarah would be able to defend herself by the help of the
defence of contributory negligence of Jason.

7BUSINESS LAW
References
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2019). Consumer guarantees. Retrieved
from https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-
guarantees#consumer-guarantees-on-products-and-services
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
The Australian Consumer Law
van Dongen, E. (2014). Contributory negligence: a historical and comparative study.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.