No AI Generated Content
Introduction
Get Free Samples Written by our Top-Notch Subject Expert Writers known for providing the No.1 Assignment writing services in Australia
The present report is based on the selling of an electronic product by a famous electronic retailer who was assuring some new inbuilt features in it. The report shows that the customer is not satisfied as the product was not meeting the expectation and the features are not working as said by the company. The report will show case the legal action that can be taken by the consumer according to the case law as well. It will help the consumer to find the relevant actions against the supplier according to the section of the different laws mentioned in Australian Consumer Law.
Overview
In the present report, a famous electronics retailer Electronics Galore is selling a new product ALSIC 2022 Signature Fridge which contains new features like having an inbuilt monitor system for monitoring purposes, a camera that can be operated with smartphones, and online shopping can also be done. After seeing the advertisement Ken was very much interested in the product and bought the fridge, but later on. Ken purchased the product on the basis of its description of the product. But, after purchasing he saw that the fridge was not working properly as the fridge was not getting connected to his phone where the latest version of the Android operating system was used. But the feature was working with other IOS phones, Microsoft phones, and also the older version of the operating system.
Case Laws and legislation
Breach of a guarantee
According “To Australian Consumer Law (ACL)”, represents a single set of guarantees to the consumers, such as the right to repair, replace or take a refund[1]. The law also allows to claims for damage compensation as well. It provides different remedies if the seller or its product cannot meet the requirements of the customers. The different kinds of remedies totally depend on the consumer rights under ACL.
The “Australian Consumer Law (ACL)” under section, 56, “breach of law” states that if a person is buying goods on the basis of their description without having the knowledge of the product that is being purchased, the goods are needed to be the same as their description. So, the consumer can rely on the basis of the product's description[2]. As per the case study of Metal Roofing and Cladding Pty Ltd V, Amcor Trading Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 472 the description given by the Australian market for the PVC resin was that it contains 99.7% pure form of PVC but after crying out of different lab test by the experts, it is analysed that the results according to different test are different. According to the resin test as designated I000 it results in showing 3.02% where’s WSI000 shows the results in 99.5%. Hence the product is not meeting the level of description as mentioned by Amcor Trading Pty Ltd. in the present case the situation is relatable as the product sold here was not meeting the description for Ken, as he purchases the product o\n the basis of the advertisement. Also, according to the law section 59, the consumer can claim legal actions if there are any written documents or a warranty is given by the seller[3].
Recommendation
There are many laws and regulations recommended to the consumers as per the ACL which gives basic consumer guarantees to customers. in the case study, Electronics Galore is the supplier of the product which is not meeting the requirements of the consumer. But according to the different case laws of Australian Consumer law, it can be clear that there is no possibility of claiming legal actions against the company. Firstly, it can be said that the product is not working with ken’s new version of the android set only, except that phone is working properly with all the other operating systems, hence the company is not liable to compensate in such situations. As the problem is from the customer's end and the product is fulfilling all its features as described in the advertisement, therefore Ken has no legal claims against Electronics Galore. The claim for breach of guarantee under section 56 is not applicable in the present case as the company has no work with the working system of the phones used by the customers[4]. Secondly, as per section law 59, there is no such legal warranty or written documents given by the company for paying compensation or bearing loss on the present situation and the product also cannot be returned to the supplier as the issue is from the customer's end. In the study of the case “Metal Roofing and Cladding Pty Ltd V, Amcor Trading Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 472” it can be seen that Amcor Trading Pty Ltd shows its legal conditions that every company keeps some competitive margin as per the company norms and market position. So, there is no liability of paying compensation to Metal Roofing and Cladding Pty Ltd. and the product was also meeting the buyer's requirement as well[5]. Therefore, in the present case, they were advertising according to their company strategy for selling products and the products are also meeting the needs of the buyers. The issue with the android system is the buyer's personal restrictions on the usage of the fridge. As per the law under section 61 it is shown that the consumer guarantee will not be applicable if the consumer is not relying on the given circumstances[6]. Therefore, it can be said that Ken has no possible ways of claiming any legal actions against the retail company or the seller of the fridge.
Conclusion
The report helps in the analysis of different sections of the law as per Australian case law by taking different case examples. After the case study, it is clear that there are no Laws passed against such a situation when the fault can be observed from the consumer's end. Therefore, following the Australian Consumer Law, it can be said that the seller is fulfilling all the customer's requirements and Ken cannot claim any kind of damage or compensation to the company.
Reference list
Royle, Richard. "Recent landmark decisions under the Australian Consumer Law." Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 153 (2019): 42-47.
Daly, Angela. "The introduction of data breach notification legislation in Australia: A comparative view." Computer Law & Security Review 34.3 (2018): 477-495.
Hart, Parisa. "Recovery of non-economic damages for breach of consumer guarantees." Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Winter2020 (2020): 26-27.
Sanchez-Lasaballett, Eliezer. "'Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission'[2017] FCAFC 224." Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia 36.1 (2022): 11-19.
Metal Roofing and Cladding P/L v Amcor Trading P/L [1999] QCA 472 (23 September 1999)
Accc, 2022, Advertising and selling guide, 2022, Available at<https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/advertising-selling/advertising-and-selling-guide/consumer-guarantees/what-are-the-guarantees > (accessed on: 22.08.2022)
[1] Royle, Richard. "Recent landmark decisions under the Australian Consumer Law." Precedent (Sydney, NSW) 153 (2019): 42-47.
[2] Daly, Angela. "The introduction of data breach notification legislation in Australia: A comparative view." Computer Law & Security Review 34.3 (2018): 477-495.
[3] Accc, 2022, Advertising and selling guide, 2022, Available at<https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/advertising-selling/advertising-and-selling-guide/consumer-guarantees/what-are-the-guarantees > (accessed on: 22.08.2022)
[4] Metal Roofing and Cladding P/L v Amcor Trading P/L [1999] QCA 472 (23 September 1999)
[5] Sanchez-Lasaballett, Eliezer. "'Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission'[2017] FCAFC 224." Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia 36.1 (2022): 11-19.
[6] Hart, Parisa. "Recovery of non-economic damages for breach of consumer guarantees." Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Winter2020 (2020): 26-27.
