Business Law Report: Contract, Property Law, Legal Action Analysis

This business law report analyzes two distinct scenarios. The first part examines a contract law case where a consumer, Annie, seeks legal recourse after being misled by a shop's advertisement and receiving misrepresented products. The report discusses potential legal actions based on Australian Consumer Law, focusing on misleading advertising, breach of contract, and consumer rights to refunds or replacements. It also explores the defenses available to the shop, Desert Island Discs. The second part delves into property law, addressing a case of co-ownership where Dodo faces debt obligations due to a forged signature and demolition charges. The report examines Dodo's responsibility for these debts, considering the implications of forgery, co-ownership laws, and potential legal actions against the co-owner, Pina, and the bank. It references relevant Australian legal frameworks and consumer protection guidelines, offering a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and potential resolutions in both cases.

Business Law

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................2
PART A - Contract Law............................................................................................................3
PART B - Property Law.............................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................9

PART A - Contract Law
Discuss any grounds on which Annie could take legal action to recover
the money she has paid for the discs.
Issue: What legal options are available for Annie to get her money back?
Rule: In order to protect the rights of the consumer the Australian Government has
established Australian Competition and Consumer Commission which looks after the rights
and laws of the consumer as well as protects them from being cheated by the companies.
Laws related to wrong that can happen with a consumer are included in this as well as
remedies to different damages are also guided by ACCC1.
Application: In the given case scenario it can be clearly seen that the customer (Anne), has
become a victim of misleading or fraudulent advertisement. She entered into the contract
because of the advertisement that read to her that discount is being provided, but, this was not
true and Anne was charged five times the amount that was mentioned in the advertisement.
This is clearly a breach of contract and the shopkeeper is here at fault as they did not paid
attention to what the advertisement read. Also, the claim regarding the disc that it contains
Beyoncé’s songs proved to be wrong as the disc contained only one original song of Beyoncé
and rest were sung by other singers. So, Anne has been a victim of misleading as well as
fraudulent claims which also charged her the five times of the amount which she expected to
pay2.
According to the Australian Consumer Law, if a consumer buys a product and it fails to serve
the purpose or the intention for which it was bought, then the consumer has all the rights to
1 ACCC, ‘About us’ <https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us> accessed 16 May
2018.
2 ACCC, ‘False or misleading claims’
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/misleading-claims-advertising/false-or-
misleading-claims> accessed 16 May 2018.

claim for refund, or replacement or repair. In this case Anne purchased the discs that were
supposed to include songs of Beyoncé but the discs failed in this purpose. Hence, it is the
consumer right of Anne to ask for replacement or for refund of the payment that has been
made by her under the influence of misleading advertisement3. Also, the Australian
Consumer Law has mentioned that when a person buys any products or services they come
with automatic guarantees that they will serve their purpose and if not so, then the consumer
has the right to sue the shopkeeper for their fraudulent act. According to the law the
consumer can directly claim to the manufacturer for the compensation if the product does not
match with the description mentioned4.
Anne in this case is clearly liable to ask for compensation as she has been misled by the
shopkeepers or the distributing agencies advertisement, it is their fault and hence, she has all
the rights to claim for compensation for the loss that has been borne by her5. In order to
resolve the problem the first place that should be visited or contacted by Anne is the shop
from where she purchased the discs. As it can be seen in the case that she did not get the
appropriate response or help from the shop there are other institutions as well that helps the
consumer in redressing their issues. Consumers can apply to their state consumer protection
agencies, Industry Ombudsman, The ACCC, or for legal advice, etc.6
3 ACCC, ‘Repair, replace, refund’
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-
refund> accessed 16 May 2018.
4 ACCC, ‘Consumer guarantees’
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-
guarantees> accessed 16 May 2018.
5 ACCC, ‘Compensation for damages & loss’
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-
for-damageloss> accessed 16 May 2018.
6 ACCC, ‘Where to go for consumer help’
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-protection/where-to-go-for-
consumer-help> accessed 16 May 2018.

Conclusion: In this case it can be seen that Anne tried to contact with the shopkeeper but
they said that it was not their mistake and it was the fault of the distribution agency who gave
them the wrong advertisement. But, Anne at the time when she purchased the advertisement
clearly meant that the discs were being sold at discounted rates. So, technically it’s not
Anne’s fault and hence, she has all the right to claim for refund. Though, the shopkeeper
transferred all the blame on the distribution agency that it was their fault, but clearly the
shopkeeper is at fault that they did not checked the advertisement and placed them on their
window. Hence, Anne can clearly state all these points in her complaint and can claim for the
refund. Also the discs bought by her did not contain the original songs sung by Beyoncé,
which was claimed by the advertisement. So, if the shopkeeper is not ready to pay her the
claim she has all the right to sue the shopkeeper along with the distribution agency for
undertaking fraudulent activities along with publishing misleading advertisements.
Discuss defences Desert Island Discs may have to such a legal action
Issue: What defences Desert Island Discs have in case legal actions are taken
Rule: The defences that can be used by the Desert Island Discs includes the sign that was
displayed by them which meant that the products being sold cannot be returned; also the
advertising was wrong and was misleading because of the fault of the distribution agency.
Application: Desert Island Discs can clearly state that they are not liable to return the
product as they have clearly mentioned at the time of the purchase through a sign board
which read as, “you can choose for your pleasure for ever” which means that the products
cannot be returned. When it comes to the misleading advertisement Desert Island Discs can
claim that the advertisement being displayed at the window has nothing to do with them as
they have not written that advertisement it was written by the distribution agency that
rectified their error the next day. The claim regarding the discs that it did not contain all the

songs sung by Beyoncé, is clearly the mistake or fault of the manufacturer hence, the
consumer should file a complaint against the manufacturer. This is so because, what is
contained in the disc is not known by the Desert Island Disc also the organization claims that
the consumers should check the disc before purchasing it. Hence, all these points can be
mentioned by Desert Island Disc in their defence against the compliant of the customer.
Conclusion: These points showcase that Desert Island is not at fault of misleading or selling
items to the customers that do not contain what is mentioned in the description and hence, the
are not at fault and can save themselves from this case.
PART B - Property Law
Discuss whether Dodo is responsible for these debts.
Issue: Dudo’s responsibility for payment
Rules: The property law of Australia is dealt by the Law Council of Australia. In the given
case it is the responsibility of both the joint owners of the property to repay the loan amount
and other charges. This is so because according to the laws both the partners are equally
liable for paying the debts if they have used a co-owned property for mortgage7. While
entering into a co-ownership of land it is very important to make clear the share of individual
partners as well as the responsibility of sharing the loan repayment between them. This was
missing in this case and hence, Dodo is facing such problems8.
Application: As a co –owner no doubt Dodo has to repay the loan amount, but Pina forged
Dodo’s signature which is illegal and hence, Dodo can sue Pina for that. According to the
7 K Sriram, "Co-borrower and liability"
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/co-borrower-and-liability/articleshow/
297518.cms> accessed 16 May 2018.
8 Makaan, ‘Property Co-Ownership| How to Avoid Disputes’
<https://www.makaan.com/iq/legal-taxes-laws/how-to-avoid-future-co-ownership-
complications-over-a-property> accessed 16 May 2018.

Section 144.1 of the Criminal Code 1995 forgery is a criminal activity and there is a
maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment to the person found guilty9. Dodo no doubt
has to clear off the loans repayments as well as the demolition charges, but Dodo can ask for
some time as well as can move the legal court in order to punish Pina and also to make him
pay off his share of the loan repayment and demolition charges being demanded by the
Council. Dodo can ensure that he moves the concerned regulatory and makes sure that
anything can be worked in his favour. The real estate agents at the time of the property
dealing provides with all the necessary information related to complaint lodging etc. hence,
this should be followed by Dodo10. Dodo can also appeal to the bank to make sure that Pina
also pays his share of repayment. As the bank was unaware of the forgery being undertaken
by Pina here is nothing that Dodo can do against them, he can only request the bank to make
a clear demarcation among the share of both the partners11. According to the laws of the
Banks both the parties are equally liable to pay off the loan amount and hence, this can be
used by Dodo to sue Pina and make him pay his share of the loan amount12.
Conclusion: So, it can be clearly inferred that Dodo is liable for the payments but, he is not
the only one who is liable Pina is equally involved in this and hence, has to share the loan
9 Find Law Australia, ‘Forgery’
<http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5039/forgery.aspx> accessed 16 May 2018.
10 Consumer Affairs Victoria, ‘Complaint handling and dispute resolution - estate
agent obligations’
<https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/licensing-and-registration/estate-agents/running-
your-business/complaint-handling-and-dispute-resolution> accessed 16 May 2018.
11 MacDonnells Law, ‘Can a Bank Enforce a Loan Agreement where one
Director’s Signature was Allegedly Forged?’ <https://macdonnells.com.au/can-bank-
enforce-loan-agreement-one-directors-signature-allegedly-forged/> accessed 16
May 2018.
12 Geoffrey Mark Roberson, ‘If a signature was forged, could the bank still
enforce the loan agreement?’ <https://www.stacklaw.com.au/wcw/which-case-won-
could-a-bank-enforce-a-loan-agreement-where-one-of-the-signatures-was-forged/>
accessed 16 May 2018.

repayment amount along with Dodo. If this is not happening then Dodo has all the rights to
sue Pina in the court first for forging his signatures and second for not paying off the loan
amount which is his responsibility as well. This is so because they both are co-owners of the
property and hence, this bides them to pay off the loan together.

References
ACCC, ‘About us’ (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2018)
<https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us> accessed 16 May 2018
ACCC, ‘False or misleading claims’ (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
2018) <https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/misleading-claims-advertising/false-or-
misleading-claims> accessed 16 May 2018
ACCC, ‘Compensation for damages & loss’ (Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission, 2018)
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-
damages-loss> accessed 16 May 2018
ACCC, ‘Consumer guarantees’ in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2018,
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-
guarantees> accessed 16 May 2018
ACCC, ‘Repair, replace, refund’ (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2018)
<https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-
refund> accessed 16 May 2018
ACCC, ‘Where to go for consumer help’ (Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission, 2018) <https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-protection/where-
to-go-for-consumer-help> accessed 16 May 2018.
Consumer Affairs Victoria, ‘Complaint handling and dispute resolution - estate agent
obligations’ (Consumer.vic.gov.au, 2018) <https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/licensing-
and-registration/estate-agents/running-your-business/complaint-handling-and-dispute-
resolution> accessed 16 May 2018.
Find Law Australia, ‘Forgery’ (Findlaw.com.au, 2018)
<http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5039/forgery.aspx> accessed 16 May 2018.

Roberson G, ‘If a signature was forged, could the bank still enforce the loan
agreement?’ (Stacks Law Firm, 2018) <https://www.stacklaw.com.au/wcw/which-case-
won-could-a-bank-enforce-a-loan-agreement-where-one-of-the-signatures-was-forged/>
accessed 16 May 2018
MacDonnells Law, ‘Can a Bank Enforce a Loan Agreement where one Director’s Signature
was Allegedly Forged?’ (MacDonnells Law, 2018) <https://macdonnells.com.au/can-
bank-enforce-loan-agreement-one-directors-signature-allegedly-forged/> accessed 16
May 2018
Makaan, ‘Property Co-Ownership| How to Avoid Disputes’ (Makaan.com, 2018)
<https://www.makaan.com/iq/legal-taxes-laws/how-to-avoid-future-co-ownership-
complications-over-a-property> accessed 16 May 2018
Sriram, K, ‘Co-borrower and liability’ (The Economic Times, 2018)
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/co-borrower-and-liability/articleshow/
297518.cms> accessed 16 May 2018