Business Law Assignment: Consumer Law Problem Analysis, Week 4

This assignment analyzes three scenarios related to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The first scenario involves Gaming the Gamers Pty Ltd and addresses potential breaches of the ACL concerning misleading advertising. The analysis focuses on whether the company's advertisement of a gaming package, which did not include key components, violated Section 29 of the ACL. The second scenario examines a contract between Nikita and Bernardette, focusing on whether certain shipping charges constitute an unfair term under Section 23 of the ACL. The assignment determines that the charges were not unfair. The final scenario involves Bagman’s Boots and whether their product labeling, claiming to be 'Proudly made in Australia,' is misleading. The analysis considers the extent of manufacturing done in Australia versus Vietnam and determines if the labeling complies with ACL Section 29 and Section 135.

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

1BUSINESS LAW

2BUSINESS LAW
Question 1
Issue
The issue is to determine whether Gaming the Gamers Pty Ltd have breached the
Australian Consumer Law and whether Asaf could make a claim against the company.
Rule
Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 lays down the Australian
Consumer Law (ACL) that strives to protect the consumers from any misleading or deceptive
conduct of the seller1. Section 29 of the ACL states that a person in trade must not supply or
promote to supply goods or services by making a misleading or false representation
pertaining to the standard, value, quality, grade, composition, style or model of such goods or
services2. Section 35 restricts bait advertisement by virtue of which the traders must not
promote his products in such a way which would give a wrong impression of such products,
deluding the consumer and making him purchase the product for a purpose which would not
match up to its real description3.
Application
In this case, Gaming the Gamers Pty Ltd had published a false and misleading
advertisement of a top-of-the-computer which gave an impression that it came along with a
42-inch screen monitor and several tower speaker. The advertisement said that the ‘gaming
package’ was for $4000; however, in fact the ‘gaming package’ did not include the monitor
and the speakers. It included a different model of computer from the same brand, having a
different capacity. This shows that the company violated the provision of the ACL that
restrict false advertisement of goods.
Conclusion
1 Competition and Consumer Act 2010, schedule 2.
2 Australian Consumer Law, s 29.
3 Australian Consumer Law, s 35

3BUSINESS LAW
Therefore, Gaming the Gamers Pty Ltd have breached ACL, giving Asaf an
opportunity to claim for compensation.
Question 2
Issue
The issue is to determine as to whether Bernardette could make a claim against Nikita
under ACL
Rule
Section 23 of the ACL restricts unfair terms of consumer contracts and declares unfair
terms as void. It is stated that such consumer contract would, however, be valid and binding
if the contract is capable for exiting without such unfair term4. It also states that a consumer
contract is a contract for supplying goods or service to a person who acquires it for personal
or domestic consumption. In addition, section 24 lays down the meaning of ‘unfair’ which
states that ‘unfair’ implies to an imbalance to the parties’ rights in relation to the contract,
which is unnecessary for the contract, causing detriment to the party5.
Application
In this case, Nikita included the shipping charges along with the packing and delivery
charge of the computer package for Bernardette. The computer package was for $2500 to
which an additional $200 was added as packaging and delivery charge along with the charge
that Nikita bore to bring the products in Australia from the supplier. She added the shipping
cost with the packaging and delivery charge which cannot be held as unfair as per the
provision of ACL. The charge was not unfair for it was necessary and was not detrimental to
the party.
Conclusion
Therefore, Bernardette could not make a claim against Nikita under ACL.
4 Australian Consumer Law, s 23
5 Australian Consumer Law, s 24

4BUSINESS LAW
Question 3
Issue
The issue is to determine whether Bagman’s breached the Australian Consumer Law.
Rule
Section 29 of ACL restricts a trader to furnish false or misleading information
pertaining to the origin of a goods as otherwise it could lead to penalty6.
Section 135 of ACL asks traders to declare an information standards for goods and
services which would lay down a description of the goods along with certain specification of
the goods matching up to the particular standards approved by the Standards Australia
International Limited or any other relevant association7. Furnishing false information
standard could bring charges against a trader under section 203 of ACL8.
Application
In this case, Bagman’s Boots tagged their product as ‘Proudly made in Australia’
however they make some parts of it Australia and some in Vietnam. The leather upper cuts
were made in Australia, including its stiches too. The boots were glued in Australia as well.
However, few other work on the boots were done in Vietnam. Here, it could be argued that as
certain parts of the boots were made in Australia, therefore, it would not amount to breach if
they are called as made in Australia. In this way it does not infringes the provision that ask
the trader not to mislead consumers pertaining to the origin of the product. In addition, the
fact that the boots complied with the Australian standard would support the argument as well.
Conclusion
Therefore, Bagman’s did not breach the Australian Consumer Law
6 Australian Consumer Law, s 29.
7 Australian Consumer Law, s 135
8 Australian Consumer Law, s 203

5BUSINESS LAW
Bibliography
Legislation
Australian Consumer Law
Competition and Consumer Act 2010