The Biggest Change in Consumer Law in 35 Years - Essay Example

Part Current Article: Item Enter your response in this column Value of question 1 and Blencowe, Manisha. 6 April /½ 2 Publication and Page/URL path Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/consumer-act-not-as-tough-as-it-promised-to-be-20100405-rn5r.html /½ 1.3 How did you locate this article? Search Term: 2010, contract law, news article, Sydney Morning Herald /2 1.4 Summary of the article The author of this article examines the fact that the Senate has now conceded legislation that is being called “the biggest change in consumer law in 35 years”. The author states that the passing of this new legislation has now created noticeable gaps in protection for small businesses and customers. /4 1.5 Why did you choose this article? With some detail, how does this article relate to a topic in Introduction to Business Law? The article expressly deals consumer related issues. Some contracts take advantage of consumers. They use language that can be confusing and misleading. The government has responded by requiring contracts to have clear language that cannot be manipulated by companies. Only certain phrases will be permitted. /3 Article word count: 624 words Part 2: Related Case You must attach all the pages up to and including the 1st paragraph of the judgment to your assignment. But not more than 2 pages in total. 2.1 Add a Case related to this article Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] EWCA Civ 1 /1½ 2.2 How does this case relate to the article? This is a case about consumer contracts. It deals a serious blow to companies that want to abuse consumers and is a foundational case. In this case, all of the parts of the contract were laid bare and intention was given its proper place in the contract making milieu. It is vital for both parties to a contract to understand what they are contacting about for the contract ot be properly made. This rarely occurs in cases where companies abuse consumers. /2 2.3 How many judges decided this case? Name them. 3 Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ and AL Smith LJ /1 2.4 In what jurisdiction was this case heard? Was this an appellate decision or original? UK, Court of Appeal, Civil Divison Appellate /1 Part 3: Related Statute You must attach a copy of the section from the statute. 3.1 Add a section of an Australian statute related to this article. Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 Ch. 2, s. 18. /1½ 3.2 Explain how this section is connected to the article? This section makes it illegal to decepitvely promote products, something very connected to the article which focuses on consumer protection. 3. How did you locate the related section of a statute? (ie not mentioned in the article) I read through much of the bill until I came to this relevant section. 3 Meaning of consumer 11 (1) A person is taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer 12 if, and only if: 13 (a) the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, 14 domestic or household use or consumption; or 15 (b) the goods consisted of a vehicle or trailer acquired for use 16 principally in the transport of goods on public roads. 17 (2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the person acquired the 18 goods, or held himself or herself out as acquiring the goods: 19 (a) for the purpose of re-supply; or 20 (b) for the purpose of using them up or transforming them, in 21 trade or commerce: 22 (i) in the course of a process of production or manufacture; 23 or 24 (ii) in the course of repairing or treating other goods or 25 fixtures on land. 26 (3) A person is taken to have acquired particular services as a 27 consumer if, and only if, the services were of a kind ordinarily 28 acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption. 29 (4) If it is alleged in any proceeding under this Schedule, or in any 30 other proceeding in respect of a matter arising under this Schedule, 31 that a person was a consumer in relation to particular goods or 32 services, it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is established, The Australian Consumer Law Schedule 1 Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 No. , 2010 29 1 that the person was a consumer in relation to those goods or 2 services. 3 (5) In this Schedule, a reference to a supply of goods or services to a 4 consumer is a reference to a supply of goods or services to a person 5 who is taken to have acquired them as a consumer. 6 4 Misleading representations with respect to future matters 7 (1) If: 8 (a) a person makes a representation with respect to any future 9 matter (including the doing of, or the refusing to do, any act); 10 and 11 (b) the person does not have reasonable grounds for making the 12 representation; 13 the representation is taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, to be 14 misleading. 15 (2) For the purposes of applying subsection (1) in relation to a 16 proceeding concerning a representation made with respect to a 17 future matter by: 18 (a) a party to the proceeding; or 19 (b) any other person; 20 the party or other person is taken not to have had reasonable 21 grounds for making the representation, unless evidence is adduced 22 to the contrary. 23 (3) To avoid doubt, subsection (2) does not: 24 (a) have the effect that, merely because such evidence to the 25 contrary is adduced, the person who made the representation 26 is taken to have had reasonable grounds for making the 27 representation; or 28 (b) have the effect of placing on any person an onus of proving 29 that the person who made the representation had reasonable 30 grounds for making the representation. 31 (4) Subsection (1) does not limit by implication the meaning of a 32 reference in this Schedule to: 33 (a) a misleading representation; or 34 (b) a representation that is misleading in a material particular; or 35 (c) conduct that is misleading or is likely or liable to mislead; Schedule 1 The Australian Consumer Law 30 Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 No. , 2010 1 and, in particular, does not imply that a representation that a person 2 makes with respect to any future matter is not misleading merely 3 because the person has reasonable grounds for making the 4 representation. Read More