Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1999)

1858 Words8 Pages
A limited partnership allows Monica and Rachel to become general partners each with unlimited liability and full control of the business. Registering myself as a limited partner protects my investment by limiting my liability to the amount I provided. If the business were to be sued, I would only be required to pay the amount I invested unlike a regular partnership in which my liability would be unlimited. As Phoebe neither wishes to be involved in the business nor made an investment, she will be an employee. Limited partners are considered to be more like investors and so without an investment there is no indicator of her liability (James, 2014, p513). 1.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
This business structure holds many advantages. Not only…show more content…
3.2 MISLEADING & DECEPTIVE CONDUCT (265/1500) ISSUE 
Is it misleading or deceptive to incorrectly state a product’s ingredients? RULE 
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) s18(1)
Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law’) s 29(1)(a)

APPLICATION 
It is stated “a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive” (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law’) s 18(1)). In particular “a person must not, in trade or commerce … make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use” (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) s29(1)(a)). By making a false statement in regard to the product’s ingredients, this is misleading consumers as to the composition of the…show more content…
However it has been said that because the product and the business are so vastly different from one another that the two may use the same name without misleading consumers (McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980) 49 FLR 455). With regard to Friends Essential Beauty v Essential Beauty, it is possible that because the two businesses are operating within the same market it may mislead consumers. However, because of the slight change of the name, and because the term “Essential Beauty” is descriptive of the operations of the business, it is unlikely to confuse customers. The terms “Big Mac” and “Building Information Centre” were concluded to be generic words, much like the words “art gallery” (Kercher, Thomas, 1987). This is the case with “Essential Beauty” and whilst it may confuse consumers, it is not misleading nor

More about Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1999)

Get Access