Business Law Report: Analysis of Consumer and Civil Law in Australia

This business law report examines key aspects of consumer and civil law within the Australian legal framework, focusing on two case studies. The first case involves James, who seeks a replacement for his refrigerator after the warranty expired. The report analyzes the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law, specifically Section 54 and Section 260 regarding acceptable quality and consumer guarantees. The report concludes that James is unlikely to receive a replacement due to the expired warranty. The second case concerns Jason, who sues Sarah after a nighttime bicycle collision. The report explores the Civil Liability Acts 2003 of Queensland, particularly Section 23 and Section 24, addressing contributory negligence. The report advises Sarah on potential defenses and reduction of damages based on Jason's negligence. The report uses the case of Valve Corporation v ACCC (2017) FCAFC 224 and Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 to support the analysis.

BUSINESS LAW

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................1
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Business Law is the branch of civil law which basically deals with the all the trade and
commerce related issues and also considers both public and private law. It manages contracts
relating to business, trade and commerce issues such as manufacturing, production and sales of
goods.
This report highlights different aspects of rules of Consumer law, in context with the case
of James who is seeking advice in relation to his refrigerator whose motor got damaged after the
warranty period has passed and want to replace the same.
Also, the case of James is being mentioned in which various provisions of Civil law is
applied, who filed a suit against Sarah who collided with him at the night, due to which he got
injured, here Sarah is seeking advice and appropriate advice is being given to her.
QUESTION 1
Issue
Here in this case of James, he purchased a refrigerator from a departmental store near him
which costed him of $1000 and it also came with a warranty of one year, that is there is any
mistake in it before the expiry of one year, he can replace the same. But after one year and two
months James found that the refrigerator stopped working and when he asked for the help
regarding the replacement from the departmental store, they refused and saying that the product
is now no more under warranty.
Laws and Section
According to Australian Consumer Law came into force on 1st January 2011, which was a
replacement of various other laws prevailing that time in Australia. Therefore, it is being planned
according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010, a legislation which being built
up for the safety and protection of consumers and applied all over the commonwealth and states
of Australia including its territories(Pearson, 2017).
Section 54
Schedule 2 of the Australian consumer law under section 54 says that, The quality provided is
accepted through guarantee and warranty, which is read as if:
 Any person is supplying goods to the final consumer in course of his trade or commerce
1

 Or the supply of goods to the consumer is not by conducting auction then in that case it is
held that the the goods supplied are under acceptable quality and are in warranty(Foley
and Christensen, 2016).
Goods can said as fit for use and good quality and acceptable if the goods are:
 Not defective
 Durable in nature
 Safe for usage
 The final finish of the goods and its appearance seems to be acceptable
 Fit for the ultimate use for which they are produced and supplied,
Then according to sub section 3, it will be held that the goods are perfect quality and acceptable
by the consumer only if consumer is familiar with all the facts and hidden facts if any, about
it(Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, 2018).
Section 260
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under its section 260, says that when
there is a failure in following the aspects of guarantee.
 There will be failure under section 259(1)(b), if not complying by the warranty of the
goods being supplied to the final consumer, if the goods are not taken by him, he is not
acquainted about all the facts of the goods.
 If the good acquired by customer are supplied with some specific description or some
sample, which helps in knowing the usage procedure(Merryman and Pérez-Perdomo,
2018).
 The goods supplied are unsafe for final usage and hence the quality is not acceptable.
 The goods are substantially unfit for the consumption and the supplier knows this fact
and also it cannot be made fit for use even after a given reasonable time.
Section 262
Australian Competition And Consumer act 2010, under section 262(1), states and
classifies the consumers who are not entitled to refuse for the goods or rejects them due to its
incompetency. The consumer is not in a position to notify to the supplier of goods if he rejects
the goods under section 259,
 If the said rejection is done when the period for the same has came to an end.
 If the goods with the consumers are discarded, lost or demolished.
2

 The goods supplied in good condition, but got damaged after the delivery to the
consumer.
 If the goods are being attached to some movable or immovable property by the consumer
and he is not in a position to remove them from the said place without harming or
damaging the product(Corones and Clarke, 2015).
Section 262(2) of the Australian Competition And Consumer act 2010, is read in regard
to the rejection period of the goods, which can be calculated from the time the good is being
delivered to the consumer till the time is suitable to expect that any kind of defect or failure can
take place, which is read along with section 259(1), which says that the consumer can take action
against the supplier if the good have been supplied to him in regard of sale or trade and the
guarantee attached to it is not being complied by the supplier.
Therefore, the rejection can be done in accordance to the above section, if it is evident in regard
to:
 Type of the goods supplied.
 The usage pattern by the consumer.
 Reasonable time for usage. The quantity and the amount of use which is reasonable and no failure is evident from
that(Pert, Chen and Carvosso, 2018).
Applicability
The rules of Australian Consumer Law, section 54 are applicable in the above case of
James, as the refrigerator was perfect and in good quality, which were accepted by James, but
section 262(2) does not apply as the motor of the refrigerator got destroyed after the warranty
period that is 1 year got expired, that means it was durable enough as it was in good condition till
the warranty period. Also, section 262(1) does not apply as James has not rejected the
refrigerator, and also notified about the motor defect to the supplier and hence, replacement of
the same cannot be done according to the rules of law. Likewise in the case of as held in the case
of Valve Corporation v ACCC (2017) FCAFC 224, it was held that Misleading Conduct wa
done by the company during online purchase of game by the plaintiff.
.
Conclusion
3

From the case of James, it can be advised to him that he is not in a position to take relief
of the replacement of the refrigerator which he purchased 1 year ago as the warranty has been
expired and there is no liability of the departmental store after the cessation of warranty period.
QUESTION 2
Issue
In this case of Jason, he filed a suit against Sarah as she collided with her at the outskirts
of Brisbane in the night. Jason was riding in the middle of the road on his bicycle and there was
no lights and there was no presence of any kind of reflective thing on the bicycle or clothes of
Jason. Suddenly Sarah came who was driving within the specific speed limit and also with due
care and attention, and both Jason And Sarah Collided with each other, due to which Jason got
injured and file a suit against Sarah mentioning that she was driving with negligence.
Laws and Section
The Civil Liability Acts 2003 of Queensland of Australia deals with the civil wrong done
by the defendant by which any harm injury which can be mental or physical harm is caused to
the plaintiff. It can done due to negligence or not taking due care and following the
duty(Steinwall, and Griggs, 2017).
Section 23
According to The Civil Liability Acts 2003 of Queensland of Australia, Section 23, can be read
with various standards adopted for taking due care in relation to negligence which can be
contributory.
 Here section 23(1), say that if a person is being found guilty of any act done due to which
harm or injury is caused to the other person, then the section also applies to the other
person who got injured, that whether he has taken due care or he is being responsible of
contributory negligence, that is despite of knowing the incident could happen and
presence of risk which can cause injury, he did not took care and caution and contributed
in contributory negligence(Martin, 2015).
 The person who got injured, also has to take standard care and caution as a reasonable
person would do, to get prevented from any harm, according to this section.
 Also, according to this section, the person must have the knowledge of the risk as
justifiably ought to have known at the time of incident.
Section 24
4

According to Section 24, The Civil Liability Acts 2003 of Queensland of Australia, the claim for
compensation can be defeated by applying contributory negligence. If the defendant claims for
reducing the compensation amount to some extent, then the court can take action according to it
and if it founds just and equitable according to the situation and rules of law, the court can also
give a reduction of 100%, mentioning that the the claim for appropriates damage is
conquered(He, Feng and Huang, 2016).
Applicability
Here in this case, according to the provisions of law, Section 23 is applicable as James
was also acted negligent on his part as he should have taken standard care while riding and at the
time of incident he ought to have the knowledge of risk which could have caused harm and
should have ride the bicycle not on the middle of the road. Hence, Sarah can now claim the
damages to be reduced by the court as it was fault of James too. Likewise, was held in the case of
Froom v Butcher, where the appeal by the defendant to the court for reducing the damages was
accepted(Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, 2019).
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above case and advised to Sarah that with the application of
Section 23 of Civil Liability Act, she can seek help of reduction of damages by appealing that
James is also equally liable for contributory negligence in the court.
CONCLUSION
The case study highlights the various provisions of business law in accordance to the
cases and the application of Consumer Law 2010 in case of James and the department store, as
Plaintiff would not be able to replace the refrigerator according to rules of law. Also, the
relevance of Civil Act, 2003 in case of Jason and Sarah, where appeal can be filed by the
defendant against the suit in the appropriate court and relief can be sought.
5

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Corones, S. and Clarke, P. H., 2015. Australian Consumer Law Commentary and Materials.
Thomson Reuters (Professional).
Foley, M. and Christensen, M., 2016. Negligence and the Duty of Care: A Case Study
Discussion. Singapore Nursing Journal. 43(1).
He, Q., Feng, J. L. and Huang, W. Y., 2016. August. Law of Negligence: Duty of Care, Standard
of Care, and the Notion of Personal Responsibility. In 2016 International Conference
on Management Science and Management Innovation. Atlantis Press.
Martin, D., 2015. Consumer Law and Policy in Australia and New Zealand. Legal Studies. 35(3),
pp.565-570.
Merryman, J. H. and Pérez-Perdomo, R., 2018. The civil law tradition: an introduction to the
legal systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press.
Pearson, G., 2017. Current Issues for Consumer Protection Law in Australia. In Consumer Law
and Socioeconomic Development (pp. 199-208). Springer, Cham.
Pert, A., Chen, H. and Carvosso, R., 2018. 'Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v
PT Garuda Indonesia Ltd'(2016) 244 FCR 190. Australian Year Book of International
Law. 35. p.258.
Steinwall, R. and Griggs, L. D., 2017. Competition and Consumer Law Journal. Competition and
Consumer Law Journal. 24(3).
Online
Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. 2018. [Online] Available
through:<http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/
sch2.html#_Toc19109394>.
Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286. 2019. [Online]
Available Through:<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Froom-v-Butcher.php>.
6