The Competition Act and Federal Trade Commission Act - Case Study Example

BUSINESS LAW (IRAC) by Student’s name Course + code name Professor’s name University name City, State Date Essay 1 Fact’s Summary Vladimir owns a shopping complex that he is leasing Leasing terms are $1000 per week for 12 months including electricity charges Sasha is interested in leasing a room in the shopping complex on the given terms that Vladimir oversteps Issue(s) The main issue is whether Sasha would succeed in a claim to the effect that Vladimir should be bound by the advertisement on the notice board. Rule/Relevant Laws Section 74.05 Competition Act and Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) states (i) As a matter of fact, the competition Act outlaws the rent or sale of a product at a higher than the advertised price (Crown & Farmer 2008). (ii) FTC Act provides that deceptive or unfair practices or acts in or having effects on commerce are in totality stated as unlawful (Moore, Maye & Collins 2011) The major legislations concerning advertisements are The Competition Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. The Acts offers different laws that are applicable to claims that can be made about services and goods. Under those Acts, it is illegal for a trader/advertiser to make deceptive claims about prices, services or goods (Moore, Maye & Collins 2011). Application The Competition’s Act Section 74.05 turns to be a civil provision (Crown & Farmer 2008). The Act outlaw the rent or sale of any product at a higher price that the price that it is advertised. On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) offers a complete framework which enables FTC to conduct its rule enforcement plans (Goldring 2000). FTC’s Act Section 5 (15 U.S.C. Section 45(a) (1), deceptive or unfair practices or acts in or having effects on commerce are in totality stated as unlawful. Actually, FTC is reliant on Section 5 together with other more particular consumer protection rules within conducting its mission. As such, FTC’s Section finds a practice, omission, or representation deceiving if it is: first, probable to deceive consumers acting sensibly under the situations; and second, if its material is probable of affecting decisions or conditions of consumers in regard to the product being issued (Goldring 2000). Thus, (i) In accordance to Section 74.05 Competition Act and FTC acts, it is more probable that Vladimir would be more liable for a claim against renting at an increased price than he actually advertised (ii) The provisions of the Acts are not applicable if the price advertised was an error which was instantaneously corrected (Crown & Farmer 2008) Contents of the advertisement (i) Clearly the agents on behalf of Vladimir placed the advertisement on behalf of Vladimir about the lease of shops having good rates with inclusion of electricity (ii) However, Vladimir denies the statement on the advertisement and points out that the tenants should pay all outgoings comprising of electricity (iii) Therefore, Vladimir might be able to say that the agents put the statement of electricity bills inclusion without his knowledge and after all, he was the owner of the shopping complex Vladimir declares that the tenant should pay the outgoing bills and electricity (i) Vladimir insists that the tenant should pay extra fees arising on top of rental fees, and also tells Sasha to contact him through email as fast as possible since many people were demanding those vacant shops Conclusion Grounded on the above analysis, I consider that Sasha would succeed in a claim to the effect that Vladimir should be bound by the advertisement on the notice. This is due to the possibility that, the court would find Vladimir guilty in accordance to both the Competition Act and the Federal Acts which illegalises deceptive advertisements of all means. Essay 2 Fact’s Summary Sasha meets Vladimir on 4th June and accepts the lease offer verbally and later sends a letter of confirmation to Vladimir the following day Vladimir visits the rugby club on 6th June and meets his close friend Milo. Milo tells Vladimir he wants to set a business and Vladimir promises him of leasing his shop at $1000 including the electricity outgoings for the shop. Milo accepts the offer and they close that deal Vladimir visits his office on 7th June and found Sasha’s letter dated 5th June of accepting the offer. Vladimir phones Sasha on the spot to inform her that he had rented out the shop and reminds her he had advised her to act quick Issue(s) The main issue is that Sasha desperately wants the house that she agreed with Vladimir he would lease her, but Vladimir has already rented it to his friend, Milo. Rules/Relevant Laws Actually, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments Act of 1988 and the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 illegalise bigotry on the grounds of the criterion of age, colour, familial status, race, national origin and religion among others (Hallenborg 2012). As such, the Federal Housing Acts are applicable to the entire features of the landlord-tenant association. In this scenario, a landlord might not (i) Advertise or utter whichever statements that shows any limitation or first choice grounded on religion, sex, race or whichever insulated category (Wood 2010) (ii) Deceptively rebut that there is an available unit (ii) Institute more controlled standards for choosing tenants or decline to lease certain members of a group (Wood 2010) (iv) During or after tenancy, institute certain privileges or conditions for a dwelling unit rental to the tenants within an insulated class, or be treating payments of late rent differently or be demanding bigger deposit (v) End tenancy for discriminatory reasons (Mackenzie & Philips 2012) (vi) Harass a tenant -An exception to note is that the federal housing acts are not applicable to the entire leasing property. As such, the major exceptions turn to be buildings occupied by owners having less than five leasing units (for instance duplex), accommodation provided by private organizations or religious groups for the affiliates, senior citizens’ designated houses, and single-family shelter being leased with no discriminatory advertising. Application The provisions of the Act most relevant to Sasha’s case turn to be that the landlord was not supposed to: institute more controlled standards for choosing tenants or decline to lease certain members of a group and during or after tenancy, institute certain privileges or conditions for a dwelling unit rental (Galbraith et al 2013). As such, setting certain standards and conditions made Vladimir to give the vacant shop to his friend and disregard Sasha The Court of Appeal offers a summary of the feasible law’s principles for determination of the moments that landlords might refuse consents unreasonably (Harpu, Megarry & Wade 2011). Equally important, approvals of those principles have been made by the House of Lords. A lease concord is valid being either written or oral and might as well being informal or formal as the agreeing parties desire it to be thus, Sasha’s lease was valid. Conclusion My advice to Sasha is that she should demand information of why Vladimir refused her lease application despite having agreed before. As such, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 offer the provisions that agreement ought not to be unjustifiably withheld. However, the Act does not offer guidance on the constitution of reasonable refusal grounds. In this scenario, the court would most likely screen Vladimir in anti-discrimination law that stipulates that it is illegal to discriminate, upon particular basis, in whichever business with property, as well as consent refusal. Case 3 Fact’s Summary Roberto tells Vladimir that he intends to start his own business Vladimir offers him a shop and Roberto signs the agreed $1,000 weekly lease Business performs poorly and Roberto demands a reduction in rent to $500 which Vladimir agrees in conversation at the club. As such, no formal arrangement is engaged For 20 weeks, Roberto pays the reduced rental with Vladimir accepting it. However, rumours reaches Vladimir that Roberto intends to terminate the lease which infuriates him and sues Roberto to recover $ 10,000 arrears in rent. Issue (s) The major issue in this scenario is that, Roberto was formerly paying $1,000 per week and later asked for a reduction to $500 after the business started performing poorly which was agreed by Vladimir the owner of the shop through a conversation. However, after 20 weeks of Roberto paying the informally agreed $500, Vladimir sued Roberto to recover $10, 000 –arrears in rent- after receiving rumours that Roberto desired to give a notice of the lease’s termination. Rules/Relevant Laws As matter of fact, it is possible to tell when being overcharged the maximum legitimate rent (McKinney et al 2006). As such, Rent Stabilization Code Section 42A obliges landlords to take in a lease-history rider with the tenant’s lease. The rider must provide the tenant with: (i) The tenant’s right of all former leases together with rent- increment orders from the moment the apartment turned to be rent-stabilized (McKinney 2006) (ii) Payable rent under those orders and leases, and (iii) The tenant’s name in the previous lease. If the landlord does not offer the lease rider to the tenant, the law forbids him from overcharging tenant the rent that he is usually supposed to pay (Great Britain, Parliament & House of Commons 2011). In this scenario, Roberto appears to be in trouble as the agreement of reducing rent was informal and if Vladimir produces the rider, it would show the $1,000 weekly rent instead of the $ 500 that Roberto was in fact paying. Application Actually, tenants are permitted by law courts to offer complaints about probable rent overcharges through three options which are: (i) Civil Court or Supreme Court. In the tenant’s perspective, Civil Court and Supreme Court turn to be better as within those courts, discovery turns to be available (Hallenborg 2003). Thus, as Roberto’s case possessed a previous written lease of $1,000 per week, the Supreme Court might take time in finding the truth of informal $500 weekly rental payment (ii) Housing Court. Cases in this Court involve tenants withholding rent thus, compelling landlords to sue them in order for the tenants to get a chance of counterclaiming (Hallenborg 2003). As such, Roberto’s waiting for the counterclaim would put him in the defensive posture instead of the offensive position. (iii) DHCR. This turns to be the least option of filing lease overcharge complaints as it takes lengthy time a head of deciding the lease overcharge protest (Great Britain, Parliament & House of Commons 2011). Additionally, landlords possess chances of appealing for free in case of losing the first cases. Also, appeals take ages before being mentioned. Conclusion Based on the preceding analysis, it would be hard for Roberto to counterclaim the overcharge in court given the presence of current written rental of $ 1,000 per week. As such, I would advise Roberto to find a pro-tenant lawyer to take his claim to the Supreme Court. Bibliography Crown, G & Farmer, J 2008, Advertising Law and Regulation, Haywards Heath, Tottel. Galbraith, A, et al 2013, Galbraith’s Building and Land Management Law for Students, New York, Routledge. Goldring, J 2000, Consumer Protection Law, Leichardt, N.S.W., Federation Press. Great Britain, Parliament, & House of Commons 2011, Journals of the House of Commons, Volume 91, New York, H.M. Stationery Office. Hallenborg, MA & Stewart, M 2003, New York Landlord’s Law Book, Berkeley, CA. Hallenborg, MA 2002, New York Tenants’ Rights, Berkeley, CA. Harpu, C, Megarry, R & Wade, W 2011, The Law of Real Property, London: Sweet & Maxwell. Mackenzie, J & Philips, M 2014, Textbook on Land Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKinney, WM, et al 2006, McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, St. Paul, West Group. Moore, RL, Maye, C & Collins, E 2011, Advertising and Public Relations Law, New York, Routledge. Wood, JB 2010, Cross-Border for Beginners – First U.S. Business Location – Structuring for Success, Oakland, Lulu.com. Read More