Business Law – Australian Standard

Business Law – Australian Standard

Business Law – Australian Standard

1. Question #1

The case pertains to the incorrect specification of terms in an advertising that was placed by a company named Mojo Beverage that claims to offer AUD 100000 for anyone who catches a specific tagged fish named Lord Harry which is a Trout. The unintentional error in this advertisement relates to specifying AUD 100000 instead of AUD 1000 which the company realized but never officially communicated even after the said fish was caught by a person named Ben.

In the context of Australian legal framework, the Australian Consumer Law refers to the national level law which is passed with an aim for protecting the consumers as well as ensuring fair mode of trading across Australia (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016). This Australian Consumer Law is a part of Competition & Consumer Act, 2010. The government body or institution that is concerned and related in this regard is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

As per the various guides, specific laws and the regulatory body as identified above, businesses in Australia are cannot  and not permitted in making a statement which is either incorrect or else likely in creating any false impression (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

This specific rule also applies in case of advertising undertaken by a company, the packaging of product, as well as any of the information that is provided to the end consumer by the staff / workforce which also includes online platforms like digital advertisements / promotions, shopping services, etc. (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016). This scope applies to any of the statements that are made by the concerned businesses over any media platforms which includes online medium, like that of testimonials over their respective websites or else accounts in social media platforms (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

For instance, businesses can never make claims that are false in relation to, (i) overall quality, aesthetics / style, type of model or else history concerning the service / product, (ii) whether a good is new or not, (iii) sponsorships, performance related characteristics, any kind of accessories, advantages or usage concerning the service / product, (iv) the accessibility or availability in terms of facilities for repair or else spare parts, (v) the requirement for specific service / good, and (vi) any kind of exclusions concerning the specific good / services (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

Further, more importantly, it shall not make any kind of difference whether a business enterprise intentionally undertook the misleading of the end customer (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016). If an impression at an overall level communicated by way of any kind of representation, statement, quotation, promotion or advertisement by the business enterprise leading to creation of misleading impression over the mind of the end consumer, relating to any factor like that of price / cost / reward, value offering or else quality concerning the services / goods, etc. then in that case the behaviour could potentially be considered breach of relevant law (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

However one of the key exception in this context with respect to the rule relates to the instances wherein in certain occasions businesses could make use of claims that are exaggerated wildly or else made vague concerning a specific product / service which in reasonable manner could not be possibly be treated in serious manner or found to be misleading (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016). An example in this context relates to claims by restaurant they offer the word’s best and tastiest steaks, etc. The claims of these kinds are referred to as puffery hence shall not be considered legally to be misleading (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

In the context presented above, the wrong claim or unintentional error made by Mojo Beverage in their advertisement by way of specifying AUD 100000 instead of AUD 1000 which the company realized but never officially communicated even after the said fish was caught by a person named Ben is evidently a breach of the Australian Consumer Law which is a part of Competition & Consumer Act, 2010 (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016). Hence Ben can pursue suitable legal actions and proceedings and gain appropriate benefit as per law (Griggs 2011; Corones 2013; ACCU 2016).

1. Question #2

This legal pertains two parties, Dorper Sheep Sellers P Ltd (Seller) and Livestock Brothers (Buyer). The good being purchased / sold between the parties relate to sheep flock. The sale negotiation is being undertaken over written letters. Dorper Sheep sent their pricing terms for sale of sheep flock with a request for response within 14 days.  In this sale negotiation, two distinct set of circumstances will be assessed herein, (case a) In this circumstance, Livestock Brothers sent a response with query of whether the sale could be undertaken by way of “usual terms” which was not replied by Dorper Sheep. However Dorper Sheep later sought to purchase on December 14th from Livestock Brothers which was declined on ground that Dorper Sheep did not confirm on time, and (case b) Due to certain errors in transmission, Livestock Brothers’ consent to purchase on 14th day did not reach Dorper Sheep and hence the sale was refused later on.

In the context of Australia, as some form of general rule the contracts are not required to comply to any element of formalities as per Australian Contract Law. Hence, while the same is more challenging for being proved with respect to contracts which are wholly or else partly oral, the same is an element of solely procedure / evidence and do not form relevance over validity of the said contract (Willmott et al 2013; Carter et al 1996).

However there are certain exceptions for this general rule, leading to certain contracts requiring essential terms for being recorded as writing / signed.  Usually the contracts for purposes of sale of goods shall not mandate compliances with any of the formalities. Although, in case of WA and Tasmania there are varied requirements for the contracts towards sale of goods which are valued over the specified amount in being evidenced by way of written notes or else memorandum that are signed amongst the party in being bound. The applicable act in this regard is the Sale of Goods Act (Willmott et al 2013; Carter et al 1996).

...