- Information
- AI Chat
Australian Consumer Law Cases
Enterprise Law (200909)
Western Sydney University
Recommended for you
Preview text
Warning: TT: undefined function: 32 Warning: TT: undefined function: 32
Australian Consumer Law Cases
➢ Clark Equipment v Covcat P/L (1987)
Orally and in advertisement brochure represented a tree- cutting machines capabilities > Covcat relied on claims, entered in lease agreement for machine. Didn’t meet expectations. The pre- contractual representation oral and written contravened the Act relation to misleading and deceptive advertisement
➢ Henjo Investments P/L & Ors v Collins Marrickville P/L (1988)
Collins was not aware of liquor licensing authority prohibited seating or service in the bar area when until he purchased the restaurant. Collins not understanding lack of approval constituted silence. Silence = misleading and deceptive conduct (was his duty to disclose relevant facts)
➢ Rc Pacific Dunlop v Paul Hogan (1988)
Pacific Dunlop operated two retail outlets called “Dundee country”. In shop and products sold displayed koala image for get up reminiscent of character Crocodile Dundee. Paul Hogan worked in film sought injunction to restrain use of koala image with/ without Dundee. Passed to s 52. Was no endorsement and was not franchise or not needed licence because implied representation business associated of film was a ground for passing-off liability. No s52 claim
➢ Taco Company of Australia v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982)
Taco Co of Australia sold Mexican style food since 1970s and had to locations in Sydney metropolitan area. Taco Bell Pty Ltd are US based franchice that commenced trading in 1981. They wanted to cease them using the name “Taco Bell” in operations under s52 of Australia Consumer Law. Taco Pty Ltd had not carried business in Australia, not used the mark or name “Taco Bell”. -> no evidence they sold in area. Taco Bell Pty Ltd (American) were restrained from using name “Taco Bell” in Sydney Metropolitan area or any similar name that’s deceptive or misleading
- Worked yeas before Americans ad was connected with Australian operators
➢ McWiliam’s Wines v McDonalds System of Australia Pty Ltd (1980)
McDonalds advertised “Big Mac” & McWilliam’s advertised 2L wine with same name. McDonalds claimed conduct was misleading -> stop advertisement. Even though there could be some confusion of connections between two companies, no one would be misled by campaign that McDonalds store was a bottle shop. No breach of s
➢ Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu P/L (1982)
Goods were identical, asked if it was deceptive or misleading conduct even though they were properly labelled. Properly labelled but close resemblance = not misleading ordinary person in public even if label is removed.
➢ ACCC v Keshow (2005)
Keshow was taking advantage of lack of education and commercial inexperience of residents of indigenous communities -> breached act of unconscionable conduct
➢ ACCC v Excite Mobile Pty Ltd (2013)
Decived customers about services, made false representations about rights/ remedies to customers -> engaged false and misleading conduct in providing mobile services and acted unconscionably using undue coercion to obtain power
➢ Miller v Gunther & Ors (2005)
Gunther was real estate agent and pastor of church. Took advantage of Samoans by exploiting their commercial inexperience and lack of education and poor English skills by inducing them to enter into disadvantage contract. Engaged in unconscionable conduct by exploiting his position as pastor of the church in these commercial transitions
➢ Hartnell v Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (1975)
Sharp advertised in number of national magazines “Every Sharp microwave tested and approved by standards in Australia”. False representation of sharp’s products was evident as they did not meet Australian standards
➢ Re Peter James Dawson v World Travel Headquarters (1981)
An agent from World travel continued to display brochure and accept deposit from consumers even though the package deal had been reduced/ changed. Agent committed several infringements including s58 because they were to supply services different from what’s advertised -> Entity fined $3000. Under common law -> damages available for “stress and disappointment” of holidaymakers, caused by breaches of contract and misrepresentations.
➢ Rowland v Divall (1923)
Rowland wasn’t aware he purchased a stolen car. He was driving it for 4 months and returned the car back to original owner. He was entitled to receive refund of purchased price. Rowland failed to get clear title of car -> total failure of consideration
➢ Healing (Sales) Pty Ltd v Inglis Electrix Pty Ltd (1968)
Inglis purchased goods from healing under contract -> require payment within 60 days. Before expiry of term and payment of goods, they entered premises and removed the good -> breached contract -> breached implied warranty of quiet possession (also called guarantee of undisturbed possession).
Australian Consumer Law Cases
Course: Enterprise Law (200909)
University: Western Sydney University
