SOCI10001 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Specific Performance, Undue Influence, Consumer Protection
25 Jul 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Week 9 Lecture
Consumer Protection
• The necessity of regulating consumer transactions:
- Consumers deal at a disadvantage in comparison to corporations. They have
less information, less negotiating power, less knowledge about the law, and
are less well organised and resourced.
- 2010- incomplete and piecemeal legislation was revised and compiled into a
uniform document concerning consumer protection law.
• Defining consumers
- Purpose= you are not a consumer if you are purchasing for the purpose of re-
sale, for manufacturing or in business. You are only a consumer if you
purchase something for your ultimate end use in a domestic situation.
- Price= $40,000 or under- the judge is immediately convinced that the
purchaser is a consumer. Judges become more critical when purchases are
over this threshold, unless they are purchasing a vehicle.
• Remedies
- Private actions brought against suppliers by consumers (plaintiffs can specify
in court the remedies they want).
- These include: an order varying the terms of a contract or arrangement,
refunds, order for repairs or necessary supplies, injunctions, compensation,
damages, make void in whole or in part.
- The ACCC can sue suppliers, not only consumers have suing power. They can
request for fines to be paid by the supplier if they can prove that a breach of
the ACL has occurred.
• ACL Section 18: Regulation of misleading or deceptive conduct
- Intention doesn’t matter
- ‘Persons’ means an individual or corporation.
- This section protects everybody, not only consumers.
- “Likely” to mislead. Conduct is misleading when it leads the person at whom
it is directed into error.
- McWilliams Wines vs. McDonalds [1980]- casket called the ‘Big Mac’.
Resolved that a reasonable person wouldn’t be misled or deceived.
- TPG vs. ACCC [2013]- “unlimited monthly downloads for $29.99/month”,
however this statement was subject to condition in fine print. It was resolved
that this was misleading conduct because a reasonable person would not read
the fine print.
- ACCC vs. Coles [2014]- “Baked today, sold today, fresh”. A third party would
half bake then freeze the bread, and Coles would bake it to its full point. It was
concluded that this was misleading and deceptive conduct, and they sued for
$2.5 million.
