Australian Consumer Law Case Study

The statutory standard of care for professionals such as teachers can be found in s 22 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) which states that

This essay will explain about the differentiation between the old system and the new system. There are several benefits for the consumer such as, this ACL will replace 20 existing state with one law, this new law is also easier to understand

The case raised questions regarding proper construction of provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) relating to a valid visa application.

The appellant, Parkview Queensland Pty Ltd (“Parkview”), is a building contractor who commenced construction of a residential property development under a standard form building contract with Fortia funds Management Ltd (“Fortia”), the developer. Fortia financed the construction under a loan facility with the Bank of Western Australia Ltd (“BankWest”).

An offeror will have made an offer where it appears to a reasonable person in the position of the offeree that an offer was intended.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an administer of the competition and Consumer Act (CCA) which is to prevent collusion among the firms and to prevent the individual firm which break the market equilibrium with their market power. Well competitive market would deliver efficiency costs, faster innovation, prevention of unduly concentrated markets, business freedom, wealth distribution, and enhancement of international competitiveness. Therefore, the ACCC is playing a crucial role in Australia, and their activities can be divided into four categories; (1) the policies for anti-competitive conduct and anti-competitive practices, (2) the mergers policy, (3) the consumer protection policy, and (4) four pillars policy.

The consumer is never wrong. For billions of dollars is paid annually from consumers to sellers in the United States. That's because America practices a vibrant culture of consumerism. Hence, consumers take advantage of many purchase options available with competitive value and price range. However, frequently a product does not live up to expectation causing consumers to lose millions of dollars in investment. You don't have to take that lost. It is the rights of consumers to experience a viable product upon purchase from sellers. As stated by Findlaw refers to product liability as "manufacturer or seller being held for placing defective product into the hands of a consumer. It is your right to get what you paid for.

This essay will review the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (as amended) (‘CPUTs’) to assess how they are responsible for the operation of the Internal Market and consider whether the CPUTs have accomplished its objective of consumer protection. This essay will first explain the Internal Market and the significance of regulation and then proceed to demonstrate how the CPUTs enable the Internal Market to function properly and its protection of consumers.

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

In a society where citizens are more aware of their rights and more willing to pursue those rights, the law is having an increasingly greater effect on the practice of education. Negligence, in terms of personal injury liability, is only one aspect of legal action which a teacher may face under current Australian negligence principles. In order to protect the many diverse stakeholders that may arise in such a situation, it is important to identify and clarify the law of negligence and how it operates within a school environment – now and in the future. This essay will do that, firstly, by discussing the current state of liability for teachers pursuant ss 2, 4 and 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (‘CLA’) and the prerequisite elements

• Explain that the remedies can be covered in court enforceable undertakings or ordered by the Court.

Every human being is having a right to talk, to live, to play, to earn and to do all other activities. Government or constitution made some amendments so that every one of us should follow all of them to live. If anyone cross those rules they are legally penalized. As per the laws of the constitution it says that an innocent person should not be punished even 100 victims can escape.

The law of unfair terms in consumer contracts have experienced changes over the years, the most significant of which was the Consumer Rights Act which came into effect on October 1st 2015. However, before the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), unfair terms in consumer contracts were covered under two pieces of legislation; the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977(UCTA 1977) and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR 1999) . The UCTA 1977 and UTCCR 1999 provided liability for transactions occurring in the course of a business as well as business and consumer contracts. Both UCTA 1977 and UTCCR 1999 provided protection for consumers from terms in a contract so as to prevent them from being at a disadvantage for not read contractual terms and conditions. The UCTA 1977 defined a consumer under s.12 (1) (a); as a party dealing not in the course of a business and not holding himself to do so; while in s12 (1) (b) the other party is acting in the course of a business. The UTCCR’s definition was very narrow, Regulation 3 stated that a consumer must be a natural person that is not a legal person e.g. a company who contracts outside his business.

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence

The definition of goods is given as any tangible moveable items. Shoppers are now guaranteed a full refund up to 30 days after the purchase of the defective product. This demand for a full refund with a fixed time limit provides better protection for consumers as the duration was previously unclear and legitimate claims could be rejected by businesses due to prior legislation only providing refunds if within a reasonable time. This time limit is provided for under Section 22(3) which gives the consumer the right to reject the goods. After 30 days, retailers will be given one opportunity to repair or replace the defective product and this is dependent on the customer.