The Principle Of Unconscianbility Within Australian Consumer Law

The media article indicated that Coles was facing more than $4 million fines, as ACCC argued its behaviour of lying about bread freshness could constitute breach of consumer law (SMH 2015). As the total amount of fines could be considerable, along with a negative impact on reputation, Coles could have entered into financial distress. The reason I chose this article was that most Australian people shop in Coles every week, thus the case is closely related to our life which is worth talking about. Besides, the article covered issue of sales and non-compliance of law which often attract auditors’ attention. The event mentioned in the article posed a risk to auditors in terms of inherent risk. Inherent risk means an auditor fails to identify or correctly understand the business risks that could result in material misstatement (Clubb 2015b). It is apparent that Coles’ behaviour is a non-compliance of law, which is included in business risk (Clubb 2015b). Therefore, auditors need to better understand the event highlighted in the article to increase the possibility of uncovering material misstatement. Auditors are held accountable for the problem because the problem may relate to potential misstatement in financial statements. If an auditor fails to uncover the misstatement, it is likely that he or she will issue a false opinion. However, auditor should express a true and fair view to increase the confidence of the external

Studmaster Pty Ltd was a landlord that owned a shopping complex in Bourke Street, Melbourne. Mrs Tran operated the “Vietnamese Lunch Box” outlet in the food court. She had little ability to speak or read English, which the representatives for Studmaster knew about. Studmaster proposed a three year renewal of her lease at $48,000 per annum plus GST for the first year and CPI increments in the second and third years.

The case that has been selected is Miguel, sixty year old Mexican-American male. He is married with three adult children who reside outside the home. Miguel was laid off from his job of twenty years when the company relocated. Miguel a proud Mexican-American and prides himself that he provided a good home and education to his family. Miguel is quiet concerned that he is struggling to provide for his wife and his mother that came to live with them. Miguel never told his wife that that he did not save very much for retirement or for these situations.

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.

There was a major change for Australian Consumer Law. Within this paper, the differences on the old and the new system will be discussed further.

Although many states have investigated the effects of disqualify people with disabilities from jury service and made recommendations for law reforms in the area, apart from Western Australia, no state has taken active measures to implement the recommendations proposed. In Western Australia, people with disabilities are no longer automatically disqualified from jury service. The Western Australian courts have shown their willingness to allow people with disabilities to participate as juror by the recent case of Drisana Levitzke-Gray which captured the attention of many media outlets. The courts allowed Ms Levitzke-Gray, with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter to participate in the jury selection process. Although Ms Levitzke-Gray was not ultimately empanelled as part of the final jury, her experience is the first of its kind in Australia and has shown the courts willingness to provide accommodations to people who are capable for performing their democratic duties.

Australia is bound by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and optional protocol, but not bound by the recommendation in Noble v Australia. John is likely to be discriminated on the basis of his cognitive impairment by being subject to a judicial procedure that ‘[focusses] on [his] mental capacity to stand trial’ without any avenue to plead not guilty. In spite of MHA’s objective of various modes of communication, no adequate support was provided to John to exercise his rights to a fair trial in his reduced verbal state, including facilitation of sign language.

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent Commonwealth statutory authority whose role is to enforce the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (ACCC, 2015). The ACCC promotes competition as it increases the prosperity and welfare of consumers and it also promotes fair trading and regulating national infrastructure for the benefit of all Australians. As the ACCC is there to benefit Australian consumers, they will take action to any business that breaches what they enforce which includes anything to improve consumer welfare, protect competition or stop conduct that is anti-competitive or harmful to consumers.

When running a business, the most common legal transactions you will be involved in is a business contract and despite what type of business a person runs, by having an understanding of contract law is a key to creating sound business agreement that will be enforceable legally incase a dispute arises (Find law).

Another issue is that despite the coverage relating to unconscionable conduct, it is difficult for consumers to be aware of the scope of the concept, and its legalistic nature tends to alienate the vulnerable consumers that are in need of protection.

In regards to assessing the effectiveness of the Australian legal system in protecting consumer rights there are a number of areas, which must be critically examined.

Disability Discrimination Act (2005) identifies the disability regulation keeping in mind just the sort of practical problems that some barricades present, unlike other legislation it makes a productive duty on managers and specialist organizations to make 'sensible alteration' to their strategies and premises where sensible and

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

This essay will analyse the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘CRA 2015’) as it is a significant element of the government’s reform of consumer law in the UK. The Act has been lauded as an immense upheaval of consumer law due to the integration of eight existing pieces of legislation into one. The complicated regulations regarding goods and services that consumers and businesses struggle to comprehend will no longer apply under the Act.