Evaluating Consumer Law and Civil Liability in Specific Scenarios

This case study examines two distinct legal scenarios under Australian law. The first scenario advises Rachel on her rights to a refund under the Australian Consumer Law, concluding that she is likely not entitled to a refund as the dress was not damaged and her reason is simply a change of mind. The study emphasizes conditions for refunds, distinguishing between minor and major damage, and online versus in-store purchases. The second scenario advises Beth on a possible defense against an action brought by Charlie, who was injured during a water rafting tour. Applying the Civil Liability Act 2003, it suggests Beth can defend herself by proving Charlie was aware of the risks involved. The analysis highlights the importance of informed consent and adherence to safety regulations, concluding that Beth can likely be found innocent if she properly informed Charlie of the risks and obtained his consent.

Individual project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question1: Advising Rachel of her right to get her money refunded under the Australian
Consumer Law:............................................................................................................................3
Question2: Advising Beth whether there is a possible defence against the action brought by
Charlie..........................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

Question1: Advising Rachel of her right to get her money refunded under the Australian
Consumer Law:
Every consumer has certain right before, during and after purchase of a product,
consumer can use their right to claim product replacement, repair and refund under condition that
meet requirement of both government law and policy of store. Getting refund is challenging task,
consumer need to provide brief discussion and careful description of the issue they have faced
during use of the product (Pearson, 2018). However, store or seller does carry certain right which
allow them to neglect the allegation or claim by consumer. According to the given scenario, it
has been mentioned that Rachel has no fully right to return the dress because it was not torn and
damaged where the store seller can defend herself and can prove innocent in front of the court
where she did not practiced any kind of false activities. In the case of Rachel, she is not entitled
to get refund whereas store owner or seller have right to stand against such claim in legal way.
This is considered as refund fraud in which consumer is had purchase product, used it and
claiming full refund which is clearly fraud and consider as illegal in market practice. Under The
Australian Consumer Law, consumer carry right to claim refund if following points are fully
satisfied, these are:
Minor damage:
 Minor damage simply called when it has been founded torn and damage by the seller
itself. If the product have minor damage then consumer secure right to repair and replace,
however in normal cases they are not entitled to get full refund. Minor damage is
considerable for both consumer and business, either business replace and repair the
product or consumer get new item with no extra pay. In the case of Rachel, her product or
dress was not damage in terms of minor damage so, it is no possible for her to claim
refund (Waye, 2018). Rachel has stated that she changes her mind and did not want a
black dress any more where the seller has simply refuses to take the dress back again as
there is no such policy to return the dress due to change of her mind.
Major damage:
 If the product is majorly damaged then consumer have right to claim refund, business or
seller have to provide either replacement. If the consumer is demanding full refund the
business or seller have to add shipping charges as well which means consumer have right

to get correct product (Najafi, 2020). However, consumer can not claim refund if major
damage is performed intentionally. In the case of Rachel, the product or dress was not
damaged that means Rachel can not claim refund just because she has changed her mind.
In the case of online purchase:
The Australian Consumer Law state that businesses or seller set certain policy of repair,
replacement and refund different from physical store than online store. In the case of Rachel, if
she has made purchase online then store policy might allow her to claim full refund because
almost every store have policy to refund amount within 14 days of purchase but immediate
action of consumer is required. Online policy of store might be different, however, change of
mind is not considerable in both cases (Corones, 2016). Consumer can not perform this kind of
act, store, seller or business does carry certain right to stand against consumer and even can win
if consumer is completely wrong. The consumer protection does protect businesses as well,
performing refund fraud will be difficult for Rachel, and she might face certain charges with
illegal and false claim over the dress or refund policy of the business, seller or store.
Question2: Advising Beth whether there is a possible defence against the action brought by
Charlie
In this contemporary society, there are many activities and places where a particular set of rules
and regulations has been implemented for an individual for their safety and defence. As per the
given scenario, a Great Adventure is a water rafting business at Cairns, Queensland who
provides the day tours in exchange for fee to the customers and deliver the rafting services along
the Tully River which is near Cairns. In the middle of the river, a customer named Charlie got
panic as he said he saw a large crocodile into the river where actually it was a floating log or a
piece of wood floating in the river. Due to his panic behaviour, the raft turned over into the water
and it became uncontrollable for Beth to handle the raft. Charlie got swift in the river and got
stuck between the large river rocks which leads him to get hurt (Behruzi, 2022). Due to this
reason, Charlie has claimed that because of Beth negligence he got hurt and will take legal
actions against him. Before, starting the rafting the team of Great adventure has already told the
safety rules and regulations along with the consent that in any situation they can get hurt where
Charlie understood and accepts all the risks associated with this activity and it will be no
responsibility of the Great Adventure for any damage and loss. Charlie claims the legal action
where Beth can defend her by the law implemented by the government (Amirkhanyan, 2019).

According to Civil Liability Act 2003, it is mentioned into section 14 that if any activity or
action for damage for breach of duty cause harm, where the voluntary already know about the
risk and the plaintiff is aware of the associated risk and damage unless plaintiff has to prove that
he or she is not aware of such damage, in that case only the defendant can get become guilty. For
this section, a person is aware of a risk if it happens, and they already accepts all the risk factors
and consent then defendant will not be accused as faulty. According to the scenario, Beth can
take the help of Civil Liability Act 2003, where it is clearly mentioned that if it is already known
by an individual about the risk and damage, and they accept it in that situation there is no fault of
Beth and Great Adventure team (Teymori Sendesi, Safayi, and et.al., 2019). If, Charlie can prove
the negligence of Beth, in that case only the court can take action against the Beth. However,
Beth can defend himself by informing and proving his side by showing the consent form which
helps and support Beth to get him out of this false crime claim. Also, Beth has been able to
understand that Great adventure to adopt the appropriate safety rules and regulations in definite
form and serve to the customers and clients. It is important for an individual business, to adopt
and implement the accurate laws and legislation and all the necessary equipments and materials
which can provide a safety to their customers and can protect them to get hurt in wider manner.
Thus, Beth and his team already prepared Charlie by giving him a life jacket, helmet and all
essential materials while rafting but due to his panic behaviour only he hurt himself and blamed
Beth which was absolutely wrong and incorrect (Ghaderpour, Mirsoleymani and et.al., 2021).
There are many businesses and organization, who have required to take the permission from the
government to start the events and activities which is associated with risks where it is legally
required to adopt and implement all the rules at the place and customer also should be aware of
all types of risks and threats. Beth can be founded guilty, if his team did not aware Charlie before
the rafting and led him to raft without providing the appropriate information and taking his
consent. Accordingly, with the help and understanding of the Civil Liability Act 2003, Beth can
be proved as innocent and can defend himself in definite way. Charlie has been already aware of
all the rules and risk factors but still he claimed against Beth which was fully wrong.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Amirkhanyan, S., 2019. Civil Liability of Legal Entities of Public Law. Bulletin of Yerevan
University C: Jurisprudence. 10(1 (28)), pp.40-47.
Behruzi, R., 2022. Investigating the Element of Fault in the Civil Liability of Holders of
Confidential Information. Available at SSRN 4078472.
Corones, S., 2016. The Australian consumer law. Thomson Lawbook Co..
Ghaderpour, E., Mirsoleymani, M.H. and et.al., 2021. The Impact of Mass Media on the
Development of Awareness of Sports Law in the Field of Sports Civil
Liability. Contemporary Studies On Sport Management, 11(21), pp.1-15.
Najafi, H., 2020. Role of fault in civil liability. Islamic Law Research Journal, 21(2), pp.561-
586.
Pearson, G., 2018. Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law in Australia.
In Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law (pp. 75-97). Springer, Cham.
Teymori Sendesi, S.G., Safayi, and et.al., 2019. How to calculate the missed opportunity in civil
liability in Iranian and British law. Political Sociology of Iran, 2(4), pp.465-483.
Waye, R., 2018. Penalties increased under Australian Consumer Law. Bulletin (Law Society of
South Australia), 40(9), pp.12-13.
1