Australian Business Law - Essay Example

Hence, the provisions of the TPA likewise applies to the given problem. Section 53 specifically prohibits the use of false representations about the standard, quality, grade, composition, style, model or history or particular previous use of goods: ACCC v Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (2004) FCA 516. Moreover, Section 58 specifically prohibits the use of false representations about the standard, quality, value or grade of services. Furthermore, the TPA and FTA likewise prohibits the use of false representations about the the sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits of goods and services (Pinetrees Lodge Pty Ltd v Atlas International Travel Pty Ltd(1981) ATPR 40-248); the sponsorship, approval or affiliation of the corporation; and the price of goods or services: ACCC v Allens Music Group Pty Ltd (2002) FCA 1552; TPC v Cue Design Pty Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-475); the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy; the place of origin of goods: ACCC V GIA Pty Ltd (2002) FCA 1298; TPC v QDSV Holdings Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-371.

Moreover, it violated Sections 54 of TPA and 62 of the FTA for falsely offering gifts or prizes because a corporation should not offer gifts, prizes or other free items to people buying its goods and services if it does not intend to provide them. It is also violated Sections 55A of the TPA and 64 of FTA for engaging in misleading conduct regarding the services it offers by misleading the public as to the nature, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any service: Doherty v Traveland Pty Ltd (1982) 4 ATPR 40-323.

It also violated Section 56 of TPA and Section 65 of FTA as a corporation under the said Sections are prohibited from engaging in trade or commerce or advertise goods or services at a specified price where it has reasonable grounds to expect that it will not be able to comply with the advertisement. Finally and in addition to that, the corporation violated the prohibition on accepting payment without intention to supply under Sections 58 of TPA and Sections 67 of FTA specifically prohibiting a corporation from accepting payment or other consideration for the goods if at the time of acceptance it intends not to supply the goods or services or to supply goods and services materially different from the goods and services in respect of which the payment is made.

It is clear from the facts that the corporation contravened Section 58 reasonable grounds exists to show that it is aware that it would not be able to supply the goods when accepting payment: Dawson v World Travel Headquarters Pty Ltd (1981) ATPR 40-240.These foregoing provisions of the TPA and the FTA as illustrated in the above- mentioned case were clearly violated because first, contrary to what was stated in its brochure, the Happiest Kangaroo was not really located in bushland but was in the centre of Kingscote, the main town on Kangaroo Island.

Second, Ariel had a ground floor room which opened on to the main street and was very noisy. Third, there were no live Australian animals in the grounds of the hotel. Fourth, when Ariel complained, the staff directed her to the many cement statues of kangaroos and wallabies in the back garden of the hotel and soft toy kangaroos and koalas used in the decoration of her room.