Consumers Covered Australian Consumer Law †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Consumers Covered Australian Consumer Law? Answer: Introducation ACL can be applied on various business related transactional work with a maximum value of $40000, in the Australian continent. It is legally stated in the Section 2 of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2010(Cth). It is also applicable when a product is bought for domestic use only and costs more than $40000. It is approved by the Australian Consumer Laws that certain guarantees are to be provided on the said product, which are decided according to the various features that are given in the product and are conventionally asked of it by the authorities and management. If it is seen that the product has no stated guarantees, then the consumer has the lawful right to seek help or make use of their rights as a consumer. It is expected that a product should always be of fine quality, or, at the very least, it should be decent in both texture and appearance such that it can meet the expectations of people who have or might invest on it and must perform as was requested by the masses and promised by the said producers. It is essential that the seller keeps each of his promises mentioned while the launch, that are in the contract. Any contract made by the sellers that does not carry any consumer warranties will be considered to be void or non-existent. A seller cannot restrict the consumer guarantees by withdrawing its support from the product repairing, exchange or simply not cooperating with the payment for any damage that was done to the product produced by the seller. In cases like these it is expected of a consumer to reach out for legal support. The court had ruled that in order to sell a product properly, the seller must see that necessary information is disclosed to the consumers while the occurrence of the transaction. In case if the seller is untrue or happens to misrepresent information to the buyer, then it will be considered as breaking of the guarantees of a consumer, entitling the consumer to an amount of compensation fit for the loss or damage suffered, as in the case of Campbell v Lane (No 2) [2013] QCATA 307. As stated by the court of law in the famous case of Norman Enterprises Pty Ltd Leimo Australia v Deng [2013] QCATA 047, when a clause of execution is taken in a contract, it greatly diminishes the overall liabilities of a seller, hence, if a seller were to avoid making a repayment, by including an exclusion clause, it will restrict the guarantees of a consumer and may hinder the consumer rights. In the above case, it was provided to us that Riviera has especially requested the company QB4 to provide safe and sound tetra bikes with no technical damage whatsoever, suitable for the children who accompany her. It was then seen that the said products didnt just have faults in their design, but had other technical issues as well, like, broken breaks and were simply not made for carrying children younger than 12. One of the children named Kang, faced considerable injuries while he attempted to the ride the said vehicle. It is clearly seen that QB4 didnt provide their consumer with the suitable accounting that was requested by her, not just that, their incompetence has resulted to a childs ill health and injuries. Hence, it can be clearly stated that Riviera , under the consumer guarantees, can demand a suitable amount of coverage for the injury that the child has suffered. Since the guarantees of a consumer are in play, it is not possible for the company to introduce an execution clause which would clearly restrict their liabilities to a vast degree. So, it can be said that the execution clause, which was added by the company to prevent the addition of loss from damage done to consumers will be considered void, in the contractual agreement. In this case, there is to discuss whether the said contract can be discharged and then then claimed by the PMSC? If the mentioned contract is by frustration, discharged, then can Nicky make her claim for the involved damages? In the case of Taylor v Caldwell (1863), it was seen that a particular party had requested to take over a property overnight, temporarily, for a an event but due to the damage it received from a fire that occurred before the event was supposed to happen, it created frustration in the contract and it had to be severed. It can be said that Frustration is a proposition that is made in only very limited circumstances. The courts prefer a detailed examination of the claimed frustration as to whether the party had had already known or seen through the fact or not, as in the case of Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [I9431A.C. 32]. It is provided in the common law that if a contract is frustrated, then it will be canceled and severed then and there and no matter what, it cannot subject itself to any sort of discharge as no such rule allows its occurrence. Any losses resulting from it, as per the case of Cantiare San Rocco S.A. v Clyde Shipbuilding Engineering Co. Ltd. (1924) A.C. 226, with accordance to the common law, fall where it actually lies. If a frustration is seen in a contract then it falls under the courts supervision as to find out whether there is special provision that would state otherwise and let the contract remain bound after the damage. The Frustrated Contract Act 1978 states an exception to the common law that says that frustration can discharge a promise but to an extent where only the damages that were done before the frustration can be fully claimed. In the case that is given to us, it is seen that a patron named Nicky had had gone to a contract with a company named PMSC which had promised to provide them with a boat that they promised to be one of a kind, that, she decided to use in order to take her children to view penguins. It was then seen that just after the boat was taken out twice, new regulations demanded that the boat made necessary alterations for the safety, so, it will not be operable for the next three months. It seems that this case, neither of the two parties are responsible for the operations of the above scenario. It was neither of their fault that the provision came into action. But, it may seem that PMSC can take actions and apply for the contract termination as per the rules of frustration. It is also seen that since Nicky had paid $2000 for the trips and had only take 2 of them, she is entitled to a sum of $800 when subtracting $1200 from the already taken trips. Conclusion As given in the Consumers Guarantees in the ACL, the consumer, Riviera, has the right to demand compensation from the company QB4 to compensate the damage done to her. In the above case, the company can, by the doctrine of Frustration, terminate the contract. But, Nicky has to be compensated with $800. References Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [I9431A.C. 32 Campbell v Lane (No 2) [2013] QCATA 307 Cantiare San Rocco S.A. v Clyde Shipbuilding Engineering Co. Ltd. (1924) A.C. 226. Frustrated Contract Act 1978 NSW Norman Enterprises Pty Ltd Leimo Australia v Deng [2013] Business Law Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2010 (Cth). Taylor v Caldwell (1863)