Consumer protection in Australia

The flashcards below were created by user lia153 on FreezingBlue Flashcards.

  1. McWilliam's Wines v McDonald's System of Australia
    • contract; vitiating circumstances; s52 TPA; misleading conduct
    • Facts: wine name Big Mac, McDonalds claimed misleading conduct, consumers might think wine hamburger.
    • Issue: Was McWilliam's conduct likely to mislead consumers?
    • Decision: No.
    • Reason: Potential consumers might wonder if business connection, but advertisement did not in any way suggest connection. If anyone made mistake, not because of McWilliam's conduct.

    • Misleading conduct established:
    • 1. what group of persons conduct aimed at.
    • 2. able to be inferred those persons were likely, in the circumstances, to be misled because of conduct.
  2. Yorke v Treasureway Stores
    • contract; vitiating circumstances; s52 TPA; misleading conduct; liability of principal and agent
    • Facts: Treasureway appointed Ross Lucas as agent, obtained financial info, passed onto Yorke. Yorke relied on info, suffered loss.
    • Issue: Were both Treasureway and Ross Lucas liable?
    • Decision: Yes.
    • Reason: Corporation acted honestly, reasonably, still liable, if likely to mislead, or has misled.
    • To avoid liability, Ross Lucas should have disclaimed responsibility for accuracy of info.
  3. Concrete Constructions v Nelson
    • trade practices; misleading conduct; meaning of "in trade or commerce"
    • Facts: Concrete Constructions construct building for company. Foreman of company misleading info to Nelson - employee of Concrete Constructions. Nelson injured. 
    • Nelson wished to claim damages, company had, through foreman, engaged in misleading conduct in trade/commerce.
    • Issue: Did act of giving misleading info to employee take place "in trade/commerce"?
    • Decision: No. Giving info not part of company's commercial/trading activities.
    • Reason: only conduct which is itself an aspect/element of activities/transactions - nature, bear a trading/commercial character.

    • e.g. driving truck to deliver goods to buyer - trade/commerce.
    • Failure of driver of truck to give correct signal while driving - not.
  4. Garry Rogers Motors v Subaru
    • contract; vitiating circumstances; s51 TPA; unconscionable conduct
    • Facts: GRM franchise agreement with Subaru, GRM unwilling to comply with new requirements, Subaru terminate.
    • Issue: Was Subaru's decision to terminate breach of s51 TPA?
    • Decision: No unconscionable conduct
    • Reason: s51 - failure to comply with industry code of conduct - factor which may indicate unconscionable conduct. 
    • Reasonable notice of termination given in writing, including reasons for decision.
    • In this case - 13 months notice, not in writing.
    • Court held although aspect of code not complied with, insufficient in itself to amount to unconscionable conduct.
Card Set:
Consumer protection in Australia
2013-06-10 03:52:41
law pbl consumer protection

Chapter 10
Show Answers: