Case Study Analysis: Australian Consumer Law and Civil Liability Act

This document presents a comprehensive case study analysis focusing on two key areas of Australian law: the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The first part of the analysis examines a scenario where a consumer, James, seeks a refrigerator replacement under the ACL. It explores the issue of acceptable quality, statutory guarantees, and the supplier's obligations under section 54 and 260 of the ACL. The analysis considers whether James is entitled to a replacement after the warranty period, referencing relevant case law such as Nesbit v Porter and Norton v Hervey Motors Ltd. The second part of the case study investigates a scenario involving Sarah and Jason, where Jason is injured while riding his bicycle at night without lights. The analysis focuses on the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), particularly section 9, 11, 13, 24, and 26, to determine whether Sarah has a valid defense against Jason's claim. It assesses issues of reasonable foreseeability, obvious risk, contributory negligence, and duty of care. The document concludes that James has a strong case for a replacement and Sarah has a solid defense against Jason's claim. References to relevant legislation and case law are provided to support the arguments.

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Question 1:
Issue:
The issue involved in this case is whether James has a chance to get a replacement of his
refrigerator as per the Australian Consumer Law.
Laws:
The Australian Consumer Law is provided in the Schedule 2 of the competition and
Consumer Act 2010 which was previously known as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The
ACL replaces the pre existing national, Territory and State laws on consumer transactions.
Chapter 3 of the ACL prevents particular types of conduct and controls practices in the consumer
transactions.
Chapter 3-2 provides various consumer guarantees in the supply of goods or services to
the consumers. Section 54 contained in Part 3-2 of ACL provides guarantee as to the acceptable
quality. It states that when a person provides goods to a consumer by way of commerce or trade
and such supply was not done by way of sale of auction, then there lies a guarantee that the
goods are of acceptable quality. The goods are to be regarded of acceptable quality if they are fit
for all the purposes for which the goods of a particular type are usually supplied by the seller.
The goods must be acceptable in finish and appearance and free from any defects. Moreover, the
goods must be safe to use and durable.
Sub section 4 of section 54 says that when the goods provided to the consumer is not in
acceptable quality and the reasons for not being of the acceptable quality were informed to the
consumer then the goods are to be regarded as of acceptable quality. Sub section 5 states that

2
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
when the goods have been displayed for sale or hire and the goods will be of the acceptable
quality if when they are supplied to the consumer when the reasons of not being considered as
non acceptable were revealed to the consumer by means of a written notice that was displayed
with the goods and such notice was transparent and free from any ambiguity.
Sub section 6 states that the goods do not failed to be considered as of acceptable quality
if they are made unacceptable due to over usage or abnormal use by the consumer to whom they
are supplied. Moreover, the goods will not be regarded as unacceptable if the consumers failed to
take steps to prevent the goods from becoming unacceptable quality in reasonable manner. Sub
section 7 provides that goods will not fail to be regarded as of acceptable quality if the consumer
checks the goods before agreeing to its supply and such examination disclosed that the goods
were not of acceptable quality.
Section 259 provides that a consumer can take action against the supplier of goods if the
supplier in trade or commerce supplies goods to such consumer along with a guarantee that is
applicable to the supply as per sub division A of Division of Part 3-2 is not properly construed
except sections 58 and 59(1). Section 260 states that a failure to comply with a guarantee
referred in section 259 9 (1)( b) that applies to the supply of goods is regarded as a major failure
if certain conditions are satisfied.
Application:
In the present case study, it was seen that James purchased a new refrigerator from a
department store at the cost of 1000 $ which he had paid already. He got a ‘one year
manufacturer warranty’ for refrigerator. After one year and 2 months, the motor of the fridge

3
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
stops working. When he contacted the store to ask for a replacement, he was informed by the
attendant that as the warranty period expired; he cannot get aid from the store.
However, as per section 54, a statutory guarantee of acceptable quality is enforceable
against the supplier of goods as well as against the manufacturers. This section requires that the
goods to be fit for the purposes they are used and acceptable in appearance and finish, without
any defects, safe and durable as seen in the case of Nesbit v Porter [2000] 2 NZLR 465 (CA). in
the case of Norton v Hervey Motors Ltd [1996] DCR 427, the District court held that when a
reasonable consumer buys a new goods like a vehicle or others, he must considers the presence
of a warranty from the manufacturer that the good is of acceptable quality.
One of the main conditions that is available under section 54 is that the goods supplied
must be durable along with other essential conditions as held in the case of ACCC v Valve
Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196, at [2]. In the present case, the refrigerator motor became
out of order within a period of 1 year 2 months from the date of purchase. Here though the
warranty period is over as given by the supplier, he cannot evade from the scope of the guarantee
of acceptable quality as given in section 54. Thus, as per section 260, it is a major failure as the
refrigerator becomes unfit for use within reasonable time.
Conclusion:
Hence, after considering the facts of the case and the rules enumerated above, James is
liable to get a replacement of the refrigerator from the store if they failed to repair it and render it
perfect and usable like before.

4
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Question 2:
Issue:
The issue involved in this case is whether Sarah can raise a defence against the action
brought against her by Jason. The issue is to be determined by applying the Civil Liability Act
2003 (Qld).
Rules:
According to the general principles given in the section 9 of the given Act, an individual
is not said to breach the duty of taking precautions against a risk of harm unless the ris can be
foreseen reasonably, the risk was significant and precautions are generally taken by a person in
that position in those circumstances.
Section 9 also states that while deciding whether a person has taken reasonable
precautions against the risk, the court will take into account the following facts that the there lies
a probability that a harm will be caused if care is not taken, that the harm is serious, that the
person has the burden to take precautions in order to avoid the risk and the that the social
usefulness of the act creates the risk of harm.
According to section 11, in order to decide whether a breach of duty caused a particular
harm, the court will look into the conditions such that the breach of duty was the factual cause of
the harm and that it is appropriate that the scope of the liability of the defendant who had
breached it extends to the harm caused, that is the defendant has te scope o liability for the harm
caused.

5
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
In section 13 of the Act, the term ‘obvious risk’ is being discussed such that it means that
an obvious risk to a person who had suffered a harm is a risk that will be obvious to person
reasonably in that particular position. Obvious risks also include the risk that are a matter of
common knowledge or are patent. A risk can be called as obvious even if its happening is a of
low probability. A risk can be obvious even if the happening of such risk is not so prominent,
physically noticeable or detectable. Moreover, to make it more understandable by removing
doubts, it is said that a risk even from a living being, is not obvious if the risk is being created
due to the failure of the person to properly act unless such failure is an obvious risk.
As per the provisions enumerated in section 24 of the Act, the principle of contributory
negligence is discussed. It says that the factors that considered while deciding whether a person
has breached his duty are also taken into consideration while determining whether the person
suffered any harm is being liable of contributory negligence that occurred due to failure to apply
precautions against such risk.
Application:
From the facts of the case, it is seen that Jason was riding bicycle at night with no lights
or reflective thing on his clothing or his bicycle on a dark stretch of road. As a result of this, he
could be seen reasonably by any person or vehicle on that road. There lies an obvious risk of him
not being visible and being knocked down by anyone due to his non visibility as per section 13.
On the other hand, Sarah was also driving but she was within the speed limit while she
was driving and was attentive too. However she collides against Jason injuring him. From the
facts of the case, it is seen that driving bicycle without light or absence of any reflective material

6
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
imposes a chance of obvious risk. Sarah here had a duty of care to other people driving on road.
She has not breached her duty as per section 11.
However, as per section 26, Jason has contributed to the harm caused to him due to riding
bicycle in those circumstances. Moreover as per section 9, Jason must have taken precautions
while driving at night on dark road.
Conclusion:
From the discussion made above, it can be concluded that Sarah had a good defence
against the action brought by Jason against her.

7
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
References:
ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196, at [2].
Nesbit v Porter [2000] 2 NZLR 465 (CA).
Norton v Hervey Motors Ltd [1996] DCR 427.
The Australian Consumer Law.
The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA).