Business Law Case Study: Analyzing Consumer Rights and Native Title

This case study examines two primary legal issues: consumer rights related to a gym membership contract and native title claims. The first scenario involves Karen, who seeks to terminate her gym membership based on a misunderstanding of 'unlimited access' and an unfair contract clause. The analysis applies sections 24 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, arguing that the gym's advertising was misleading and the contract terms were unfair, thus Karen should not be liable for termination fees. The second part addresses native title, referencing the Mabo case and related legal principles. It briefly touches on proprietary and usufructuary rights, the Native Title Act 1993, and a failed land rights claim due to non-adherence to traditional law. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and resources for students.

Introduction to Business Law

Table of Contents
HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION.............................................................................................................3
Issue..................................................................................................................................................3
Law....................................................................................................................................................3
Application.........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................4
Question 1.........................................................................................................................................4
Question 2.........................................................................................................................................4
Question 3.........................................................................................................................................4
Question 4.........................................................................................................................................4
Question 5.........................................................................................................................................4

HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION
Issue
 The issue in this case is that Karen who purchased a membership with Gym and Tonic
wants to know if Karen can terminate a contract on the ground that she thought that
there is ‘unlimited access’ which involve using all the equipments in the gym but the
receptionist of the gym claims that ‘unlimited access’ means unlimited number of
times of visit to the gym. When she demanded to terminate the contract the 5th clause
of the contract that has been signed by her has been pointed out by the gym which
suggested that gym can terminate the membership of any customer at any point but a
customer has to pay 100 to terminate the contract. These are the two key issues for
Karen.
Law
 Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Section 24 and section 29
Application
 The Section 29 of the Australian consumer law deals with the element of false and
misleading representation which suggested that it is illegal for a commercial body to
provide advertisement which makes false representation. In this case the term
‘unlimited access’ can be considered to be under section 29 of the consumer act 2010.
The picture that was used also showed the members to be using all kind of gym
equipments so it was assumed by Karen that these provisions are included in the
contract.
 The second of Karen was that when she decided to terminate the contract the gym
pointed out the contract signed by her which suggested that she is liable to pay 100 for
breaking the contract whereas the gym is not liable for anything. This is going to be
considered under section 24 which states the unfair contract term. This section states
that there are certain contracts that are not going to be considered void. The first step
is that both the parties should have equalled right and obligation which is not present
in this case as one party is liable to pay 100 for the same action while the other is
liable to pay nothing. The second step is that the regulation is formulated by the party
that is going to be getting advantage in this case the gym and lastly the application of

the contract is going to impact negatively on the customer. So the contract is unfair
and Karen doesn’t need to pay 100 for breaking it.
Conclusion
 In conclusion it can be said that Karen can break the contract and not pay the required
sum.
Question 1
 The island in the eastern Torres Strait or the Murray Island has been the island that
has been claimed by the tribe. The name of the tribe was Mabo.
Question 2
 The natives were given proprietary and usufructuary rights on the island. The native
title was extinguished by sovereign power which is not consistent with the right to
enjoy the native title.
Question 3
 The sense of the claim of Graeme Nate was that the land rights give a lease title to the
indigenous Australians whereas the native title is a created under the Australian
common law.
Question 4
 Native Title Act 1993 was created. The pastoral leases didn’t extinguish the native
title, these two rights can sustain together but in case of conflict pastoral rights will
win.
Question 5
 The case was filed in 1998 and the decision came in 2002. The case failed because the
claimant stopped following the traditional law.