Module 8 Flashcards
Assume Farah has breached the contract. A court is likely to find the $4 500 cost of hiring ranger Nick is:
A direct loss
Assume that Farah has breached the contract. A court is likely to find the cost of Tom’s stay at TM Kennel (that is the cost Rhianna refuses to pay is)
A direct loss
What is the likely result of Rhianna’s claim for $2000 in damages for distress due to Tom’s newly developed aggressive behaviour?
Unlikely to be successful in this claim as it is not a direct or consequential loss flowing from Farah’s breach
What is consumer law
Law that regulates consumer transactions and the std conduct of the business that produces goods and services
Consumers have limited info and bargaining power when dealing with corporate manufacturers and service providers
Consumer law
Is a mixture of legislation and common law
Legislation consumer law
Sale of Goods Act
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Australian Consumer Law
Competition and Consumer Act
Federal piece of legislation that operates AUS wide
Largely follows the TPA with two significant exception
- introduction of a consumer guarantee regime
- more nationally oriented product safety legislation
Misleading or deceptive conduct s18
- Formerly section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
- A person must not in trade or commerce engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive
- Has a very broad application
Components of s 18
A person
In trade or commerce
Engaging in
Misleading or deceptive conduct
A person includes
both natural persons and corporations
Misleading or deceptive conduct refers to
conduct that leads members of the public in their capacity as consumers of goods or services into error, or is likely to do so.
The test of whether something is misleading in a s 18 sense is the
meaning that would be given to the representation by an ordinary and reasonable member of the class of consumers to which the representation was addressed
McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonalds System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980)
Facts:
McWilliams Wines named one of its wines the ‘Big Mac’
McDonald’s who have a hamburger called the Big Mac claimed that McWilliam’s use of the name amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct
Issue: Was McWilliam’s use of the name misleading?
Decision: No the distinction between wine and hamburgers is clear so as not to confuse the relevant class of consumers
Taco Co of Australia v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982)
Facts: a mexican restaurant named “Taco Bell” opened in Sydney
Another corp in Sydney used that name for its Mexican restaurant over the previous five years. They brought action for misleading and deceptive conduct
Issue: was the newly opened restaurants use of the name misleading?
Decision: Yes because both restaurants sold the same type of food
Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd
Facts: a Spanish company made perfume under the name “Nike Sports Fragrance’
Nike international was a large sports apparel company. The nike perfume was displayed in pharmacies underneath other sports fragrances including one by Adidas
Issue: could Nike sue for misleading and deceptive conduct
Decision: Yes it was, it would lead the class of consumers who purchase Nike to think the perfume was another product