Many and Bella are married since the year 2008 and they owe a pizza business together in the city. The name of their pizza business is Perfect Domino Pizza. Many and Bella realized that they require a new oven for the running of their business and to buy a new oven they visited Tuscan Ovens Pty. Ltd. according to their specifications they wanted an oven that had the capability of making 30 pizzas every hour for continuous sixteen hours each day. The Manager of Tuscan Ovens Pty. Ltd guaranteed Manny and Bella that the oven shall meet the requirements. Hence, Manny and Bella purchased the oven for $15,000.
Manny and Bella advertised the Tuscan XX oven with a different name and called it MB Oven. After installing the new oven, it was seen that the oven was not matching the requirements and it could make only 12 pizzas in one hour. Many and Bella started to doubt the reliability of the oven they purchased. Because of this, Manny and Bella started to suffer a loss for the oven due to the incapability of the oven for not baking 30 pizzas. Based on the facts, the issue that arises here is whether Tuscans Ovens Pty Ltd can be held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct or can Manny and Bella be held liable for fraudulent action for not advertising the oven in its original name.
The consumer law of Australia includes a set of rules that provides protection to the persons or organizations who are consumers of any services or goods. According to section 3 of the Australian Consumer Law, a consumer is a person who acquires or purchases goods or services for his personal and household purposes and such goods or services should not exceed the cost of 40 thousand dollars (Schwartz 2012). The Australian Consumer Law came into force on January 1, 2011. The ACL is a single statute that is used for the protection of consumer rights in Australia. Section 4B of the Trade Practices Act has also described the word consumer (Brocke and Rosemann 2010). Section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2011, deals with misleading or deceptive conduct of the retailers or sellers. Section 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2011, deals with the conduct of the seller or retailer. As per this section, a seller or a retailer should not conduct any behavior that may be considered as misleading or deceptive in nature. This can be collectively termed as misrepresentation of facts by the seller to the consumer. Misrepresentation of facts means, the seller or the retailer have stated facts that are not true in nature and the given product or service has not matched with the requirements of the customer.
In the famous case of ACCC V. TPG, TPG was held liable by the High Court for misleading advertisements that were made in relation to ADSL2+ services. In the advertisement it was said the cost of ADSL2+ services shall be inclusive of all the prices however, at the time of installation it was seen that the company demanded additional charges apart from the installation charges (Kolivos and Kuperman 2012). The High Court held such an act as misleading or deceptive and the court held TPG liable for violation of Section 18 of the ACL and Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. If we apply the judgment on the given case scenario, it may be concluded that the manager of Tuscan can also be held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct (Bridge 2015).
Similarly, it may be held that the manager of Tuscan Ovens Pty Ltd. misled Manny and Bella. At the time when they had gone to buy the oven, the Manager ensured that the oven shall cook 30 pizzas; however, later it was found that the oven could only bake 12 pizzas in one hour. Since the Manager misrepresented the facts, Manny and Bella suffered huge monetary loss and consequently they had to bear fiscal responsibilities. Hence, Manny and Bella can file a suit against the Manager of the Tuscan Ovens Pty Ltd for misleading or deceptive conduct. A business should not indulge in any activity that is misleading or deceptive in nature or any act that has the likelihood of causing deception in nature. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, provides the following remedies to the consumer who has been deceived or misled by the seller, they are as follows, injunction, damages or compensation (Farrington and Palfreyman 2012). Chapter 5 of the Australian Consumer Law deals with the damages or remedies that shall be provided to the consumer whose rights have been violated. Section 18 allows persons to seek remedies in case they have suffered a loss for the violation of the rights contained in the Australian Consumer law (Latimer 2012).
In the same way, Manny and Bella can also be held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct. Manny and Bella used a different name of the oven and advertised the oven with some other name. This means that they also intended to mislead their customers and this why they may also be held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct. Hence, Manny, Bella and the Manager can be held liable for breach of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
The consumer law of Australia is regarded as the most indispensable law in Australia for the protection and conservation of consumer rights. The consumer law in Australia has brought a revolutionary change and has dominated all the existing laws in Australia. The Australian Consumer Law has provided appropriate remedies for violation of any provision that is contained in the Australian Consumer Law.
Bradbrook, A.J., MacCallum, S.V., Moore, A.P., Grattan, S. and Griggs, L.D., 2011. Australian property law: cases and materials.
Bridge, M., 2015. Personal property law. OUP Oxford.
Corones, S.G., 2013. The Australian Consumer Law. Thomson Reuters, Lawbook Co..
Crosbie, E. and Glantz, S.A., 2012. Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tobacco control, pp.tobaccocontrol-2012.
El Kharbili, M., 2012, January. Business process regulatory compliance management solution frameworks: A comparative evaluation. In Proceedings of the Eighth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling-Volume 130(pp. 23-32). Australian Computer Society, Inc.
Farrington, D. and Palfreyman, D. eds., 2012. The law of higher education. OUP Oxford.
Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D. and Peyton, L., 2011, August. A systematic review of goal-oriented requirements management frameworks for business process compliance. In Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW), 2011 Fourth International Workshop on (pp. 25-34). IEEE.
Kolivos, E. and Kuperman, A., 2012. Consumer law: Web of lies-legal implications of astroturfing. Keeping good companies, 64(1), p.38.
Latimer, P., 2012. Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited.
MacDonald, C., McCrimmon, L., Wallace, A. and Weir, M., 2010. Real property law in Queensland.
Maskus, K.E., 2012. Strengthening intellectual property rights in Asia: Implications for Australia. Welcome to the electronic edition of Australia’s Economy in its International Context, volume 2. The book opens with the bookmark panel and you will see the contents page/s. Click on this anytime to return to the contents. You can also add your own bookmarks., p.409.
Schwartz, M.S., 2012. The state of business ethics in Israel: A light unto the nations?. Journal of business ethics, 105(4), pp.429-446.
Shopping, I.H., 2013. Consumer. Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.
Solomon, M., Russell-Bennett, R. and Previte, J., 2012. Consumer behaviour. Pearson Higher Education AU.
Turconi, S., Rentocchini, G., Manchala, S., Khimasia, M., Glass, A., De Fanti, J. and Braken, R., 2011. Intellectual property protection: Problems and prospects for China.