Business Law Report: Consumer Law, Negligence, and Defenses

This business law report addresses two key scenarios under Australian law. The first section analyzes a case where a consumer seeks a refrigerator replacement under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), focusing on consumer guarantees and the supplier's obligations after the manufacturer's warranty expires. The analysis considers the ACCC's regulations and relevant case law, concluding that the consumer is entitled to a replacement. The second section examines a negligence case involving a cyclist's injuries, evaluating the driver's potential liability under the Civil Liability Act 2003. The analysis emphasizes the concept of obvious risk and the cyclist's contributory negligence, concluding that the driver has a valid defense against the claim. The report references relevant legal principles and case law to support its conclusions, providing legal advice for both scenarios.

Business Law

MAIN BODY
Question 1:
Advising James whether he has case to get replacement for refrigerator under the
Australian Consumer Law-
Case:
James had purchased new refrigerator from departmental store. The refrigerator cost to
$1000. One year warranty has been received by the James in favour of that refrigerator. Motor in
refrigerator has stopped working after the one year two months. James had contacted department
store from where TV is being purchased and ask for replacement of refrigerator. Attendant of
store apologizes for that and refuse for replacement as they are out of warranty.
Rule:
As part of the consumer law and fair trading law, ACCC regulate consumer guarantees.
Owner of business must render automatic guarantee to consumer while purchasing any product
or service (Rodrigues, 2018). Guarantee include product or service would work and do as
advertised. If good and service is being sale it must guarantee that-
 The good is of acceptable quality.
 Should match provided description on product.
 It must meet express warranty.
 Fit to the purpose.
Warranty is voluntary promise which a seller offer to its customer. It applies to goods or
service that is sold to customer and could be enforced under American Consumer Law and
Contract Law. Express warranty express that it is an extra representation or promise which is
done by seller about good or service which is rendered by them to consumer. This warranty does
not limit guarantee of consumer. For example, if product meets failure outside warranty periods,
it will still be covered by the consumer guarantee (Cameron, 2017). Consumer could exercise
their rights for having goods repair, replace or refund as good must meet extra promises which
are made about its performance, quality and conditions even its manufacture warranty is for 1-2
years. Sometimes extra promises are made by business for standard and quality of product. They
could refer to-
 The state, quality, performance, condition or characteristic of good.
 What product do and for what time period.
1

 Availability of service.
 Supplying of part.
If suppliers provide such warranty, then under the Consumer Law they must comply with the
warranty. If anyone fails to comply with that warranty, then consumer had right against the
business under guarantee. The business is then liable to pay refund, replacement or
reimbursement in favour of that product to consumer.
Applicability:
Under this case manufacturer warranty of one year for that refrigerator had expired but
then also James is liable for replacement, refund or repayment against the refrigerator. As
described above that supplier is also liable for product after the expiry of manufacturing
warranty. As the promise is not fulfilled by supplier. The departmental store had promised that
refrigerator had good quality, standard and characteristics but after one year and two months its
motor had stop working this state that the product is not up to the promise which is made by the
departmental store while purchasing the refrigerator (Basedow, 2017). So somehow it is stated
that under Consumer Law James is liable to get refund, replacement or reimbursement for the
refrigerator as it is under the guarantee of product. As per the ACCC v Hewlett-Packard [2013]
FCA 653, case court has given same decision in favour of the consumer that the good must be
replaced by the seller under the consumer law. So in this case James is also liable to get back the
replacement of refrigerator by the store. As the departmental store is liable to do so under the
Consumer Law.
Conclusion:
From the above understanding on consumer law. James must get replacement for the
refrigerator by the departmental store. As they are liable for the product guarantee whether its
manufacturing warranty had expired. If it is not fulfilled by the departmental store then James
could file a case and thus after that department store owner had to replace that TV under the law
and some amount of fine is also being charged on the business owner by ACL. Thus, it could be
advised to James that he must get replacement for refrigerator by the departmental store and
could get a new one in favour of that defected product (de Almeida and et.al., 2017). It could be
prescribed that individual must have guaranteed on product along with the warranty and which
could be depended on type, characteristic and nature of goods. If it is not replaced by the owner
than legal action could be taken him for the replacement.
2

Question 2:
Advising Sarah whether she has possible defence against action brought by Jason-
Case:
Jason is riding the bicycle at night with no light or any reflective material on its bicycle
& on his cloths. Bicycle was ridden by him in the mid of road on the dark stretch of road on
outskirts of the Brisbane. Sarah was driving within speed limit along with paying attention when
a collision occur with Jason. Jason got injured and legal action is taken against Sarah alleging
that it's the negligence of her (Jaworski, 2017).
Rule:
Under the Civil Liability Act 2003, for determining the negligence of 'risk.' Obvious and
insignificant are two risk types. Obvious is the type of risk which is thought by individual that it
was obvious, on the fact of case. For example, reasonable individual must be aware that standing
in play ground can be risky because ball can hit the person (Zanin, Herrera and Melani, 2016).
 Arguments states that now person is responsible for own risk because he knew that such
kind of things can hit them hence it is own mistake of individual.
There are some argument under Act that defendant could utilize for defending claim by the
injured individual. Section 13 describes obvious risk which states that person has to be well
aware that standing in risky situation can harm them , for example drive with drink can cause
injury and in such condition person can not blame others.
When it is considered whether there is obvious risk, it must be noted that-
 As per section 15 defendant can not warm the injured person, if it is founded by court that
it is obvious one (Basedow, 2017).
 If injured person could show, on balance of the probability, which they were not further
aware of risk, defendant would not be able to rely on defence of the obvious risk.
Civil Liability Act 2003- Section 19, state if person is in obvious risk condition then it is
dangerous hence he himself is responsible for his injury.
 An individual is not liable in negligence for the harm suffered by the another individual
as result of materialization of the obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity in
which an individual suffering from harm is engaged.
 This section is applicable whether or not individual suffering harm was firstly aware of
risk (Cameron, 2017).
3

Applicability:
From the above Civil Liability Act 2003, it can be understood that in the case of Jason
and Sarah. Sarah is not liable for the injury which had done to the Jason. It was the obvious risk
which had been meet with the Jason due to his negligence. He was riding bicycle at the night
without any light or the reflective material on his bicycle, along with all this he was riding in the
middle of the road. From the situation it is stated obvious risk which can be optimized. Jason for
the fun riding bicycle in the mid of road on the dark stretch of road. While Sarah was already
aware and was driving with minimum speed. Thus, it can be stated that it is the overall fault of
plaintiff in this case, who was meet with an accident by his own fault (de Almeida and et.al.,
2017). In the case Streller v Albury City Council [2013] NSWCA 348 court also had stated the
same decision that risk is obvious as an individual had dived into the river knowing the depth
and plaintiff is experienced diver so plaintiff could not file a case for such and defender could
not have liability for its injury.
Conclusion:
From above, it could be stated by Civil Liability Act 2003, Sarah is not liable to the Jason
for injury by which Jason has been meet. It was all Jason's fault and negligence by which the
accident occurred. There was no fault of Sarah at anywhere she was driving with totally
conscious mind while maintaining its speed as well but somehow due to the Jason's recreational
activity the accident occurred. Jason was already aware of the circumstances in which he was
riding the bicycle and thus it was obvious to meet with an accident (Jaworski, 2017). Thus, it is
advised to Sarah that she could have possible defence against action which is brought by the
Jason. Sarah is totally safe under the law and could take action against the Jason.
4

REFRENCES
Books and Journals
Basedow, J., 2017. BREXIT and business law. China-EU Law Journal. 5(3-4). pp.101-118.
Cameron, P., 2017. International energy investment law: the pursuit of stability. OUP Catalogue.
de Almeida, J.R.L. and et.al., 2017. Analysis of Civil Liability Regarding CCS: The Brazilian
Case. World. 3. p.4.
Jaworski, B., 2017. L’égalité devant les charges publiques as the basic of state liability on equity
under French law. Folia Iuridica Universitatis Wratislaviensis. 6(1). pp.9-18.
Rodrigues, U.R., 2018. Law and the Blockchain. Iowa L. Rev. 104. p.679.
Zanin, A.A., Herrera, L.M. and Melani, R.F.H., 2016. Civil liability: characterization of the
demand for lawsuits against dentists. Brazilian oral research. 30(1).
5