Australian Consumer Law Consumers Rights

Question: Discuss about theAustralian Consumer Law for Consumers Right. Answer: Issues There was a contractual invitation given by Nikhils Car Sales Pty Limited to Vanessa. The price of the car is $9,900. Vanessa agrees to buy it for $9,500 in cash. In the office a sale document is prepared and a copy of the cash sales at $9,500 is given to Vanessa. There was a written contract between Nikhil and Vanessa and Nikhil did not give the warranty card when Vanessa bought the car. Contract without warranty is made so there is obligation on the part of Nikhil as to whether there is a violation in the contract and if Nikhil is breaching the rules of consumer rights act in the given case (Griggs, 2011). The problem arises because warranty card was not delivered by Nikhil to Vanessa. The contract has problem because all the elements were properly not discovered here. The questions arise: Is the contract has made properly? Will argument rise against this case? Law The contract can be cancelled if there are unfair terms and the court can declare the case unconscionable. If there is an imbalance in the right of the party which arises under the contract, the court declares the contract as unfair or unconscionable. It is not necessary for a party to protect the legitimate interests of the party which would be advantaged by the term. There would be a detriment to a party if it relies on the contract. The Australian Consumer Law guarantees that the seller can sell the goods only if the goods are of acceptable quality and match their description and fit the purpose of the consumer (Radan, et al. 2009). The services should be handled with reasonable skill and care and the services are completed within a reasonable time of no agreed date. Here as per contract law of Australia, the contract rules are not fulfilled and the warranty is not provided to Vanessa by Nikhil which is violation of rules of an agreement. For example the case like Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams Case is similar to this case where the owner of the second hand car tends to sell the car stating that it is a model of 1948. The contract took place between the dealer and the seller but the dealer became aware that the car is a model of 1939. The dealer sued the seller but under law, it was the fault of the dealer because he did not check the condition of the car. The case is similar to the case of Nikhil and Vanessa to an extent due to the victim being mislead because of their carelessness and it is not enforceable in both these cases. Lack of legal consideration and presence of elements of the contract showed that the contract is not enforceable. Application The Australian Consumer Law includes that the seller should make sure the lay of agreement is in the writing. The Australian Consumer Law states that a consumer may terminate a lay-by agreement at any time before the goods are delivered and the seller should not terminate the agreement except certain circumstances. There is lack of presence in the elements, conditions which are misleading done by the seller while he sells the car to Lara. There is an offer, legal intention, and acceptance after a contractual invitation but consideration and warranty, terms and conditions is not present so the contract is not enforceable under law (Latimer, 2012). According to part 5 of Trade Practices act 1974, commercial trade processes are not followed by Nikhil which is the breach of Fair Works Act. According to the Trade Practice Act the rules of commercial programs and the methods to sell the car by providing proper rudiments are not given by Vanessa and Nikhil. Under the Consumer Rights Act, Vanessa can sue Nikhil (Steinwall, et al. 2010). Conclusions There is a violation of the rules of the Consumer Competition Act, Contract Act and Trade practice Act of Australia as the seller has not maintained the rules of the contract and for the reason the contract is not enforceable under the law. Issues An invitation of treat is given by Nikhils car sales Pty Ltd and features of the 3 model Mazda is described whose price is $9,999. The offer was counter offered by Vanessa and the price fixed at $9,500. A sale agreement was made between both the parties. Issue arises because the warranty card is not delivered to Vanessa. For that reason the contract is not enforceable. All the elements such as offer, acceptance and invitation of treat are mentioned but the terms and warranty of the contract is not mentioned here. The car is second hand, so after three months the car was slipping out of the gear when she gave it for servicing the automatic clutch of Mazda 2 was in bad condition. The seller falsified Vanessa by selling a car which is very old and damaged. Misrepresentation has occurred in this case. The question arises: Under common law how can the seller punished? What are the methods through which Vanessa can sue Nikhil for misrepresenting her? Laws Under common law of Australia it is the right of Vanessa to ask for the receipt of the product delivery and the warranty card while she is doing sales contract with Nikhil. Every product has an order number and various other things which was lacking in case of the car Mazda 2. As per common law consumer guarantee, consumer obligations, condition details of the car. But the seller has done fraud with the buyer by not producing the product conditions letter and warranty and selling her second hand damaged car. As per Common law of Australia he can be asked penalty from court (www.victorialawfoundation.org.au, 2016). Application The buyer or the plaintiff can ask monetary damages according to Consumer rights act. As per Common law Vanessa can ask monetary compensations, damages, replacement of the material or refund from the seller. As per courts order the defendant is bound to give compensation nad if he do not obey the order then as per section 181 of consumer protection act he can be imprisoned under law (Steinwall, et al, 2010). Conclusion The rights of the common law is stated her through which the plaintiff can claim for compensation from the defendant and as per courts order the remedy has to be given by Nikhil to Vanessa. Issues Sales agreement took place between Nikhil and Vanessa but obligation arises as the warranty card or guaranty is not provided. Even the breach of contract law and consumer law has done. Problem arises because the car got damaged after 3 months and Vanessa has to suffer for that. The question arises: What punishment should be awarded to the defendant? As per which act the plaintiff can ask for the rights from the defendant? Laws According to the Australian Consumer Law, it is prohibited to mislead the buyer and unlawful in making statements in the trade of commerce which can mislead the buyer. If the seller fails to disclose relevant information, it can also mislead the buyer. Under Australian Consumer Law, sellers should compensate for the buyer due to the loss of damage suffered due to supply of goods with a safety defect. Actions could also be brought upon by enforcement agencies on behalf of the affected buyer (Ramsay, 2012). Product Safety Law refers to product related services in the Australia. The Australian Consumer Law outlines the responsibilities of the sellers under the national product safety framework. Vanessa should follow the rules of Consumer Rights Act (Ellinghaus, 2007). According to Consumer Protection Act and Consumer Rights Act the consumer can claim monetary compensation from the seller for misleading or doing misrepresentation with her. As per section 18 of Consumer rights act with the legal notification of chapter 3 the car sold b y Nikhil is unsolicited good and for doing misrepresentation with Vanessa, he has to give monetary damage to Vanessa. According to Australian Consumer competition act under section 52 monetary damages can be asked by Vanessa from Nikhil and he can be imprisoned under criminal conduct for selling unsolicited product and if he is unable to pay the monetary damages as per consumer competition act (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, 2012). For example, a shopkeeper sold a mobile phone to a buyer and after two days the buyer found that the phones speaker is not working and it proves that he is misrepresented intentionally by the seller and under consumer rights act claiming for refund and servicing of the mobile is the responsibility of the seller and otherwise he will be awarded punishment by court under sec 232 of Consumer rights act. Application As per chapter 4 of Australian Consumer law Nikhil case falls under criminal offense. The plaintiff (Vanessa) can ask for remedy from the defendant (Nikhil). The remedies can be replacement with free of cost, repair and refund. According to section 232 of Consumer Rights Act and under misrepresentation act and under section 52 of consumer completion act Nikhil can be imprisoned by court if he doesnt give monetary compensation to Vanessa (Legistation Australian consumer law, 2016). Conclusion There sections of ACL (Australian Consumer Law) and the procedure of taking remedy by the plaintiff from the defendant are mentioned here properly. In this case the defendant has done fraudulence and he should be punished under law for violating the Consumer law. References Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. (2012).Consumers' rights obligations. [online] Available at: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016]. Ellinghaus, M. (2007). Australian cases on contract. [Melbourne, Vic.?]: Code Press. Griggs, L.D., (2011). Australian Consumer Law-An overview, unfair contracts, consumer guarantees and remedies. In Australian Consumer Law (pp. 1-9). Latimer, P., (2012). Australian Business Law 2012. CCH Australia Limited. Legislation Australian Consumer Law(2016) Consumerlaw.gov.au https://consumerlaw.gov.au/the-australian-consumer-law/legislation/ Radan, Peter and John Gooley,Principles Of Australian Contract Law(LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009) Ramsay, I., (2012). Consumer law and policy: Text and materials on regulating consumer markets. Bloomsbury Publishing. Steinwall, Ray,Annotated Competion And Consumer Act 2010(LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011) Steinwall, Ray,Trade Practices Act 1974(LexisNexis Butterworths Australia, 2010) www.victorialawfoundation.org.au. (2016).Victoria Law Foundation and Melbourne Law School LAW ORATION 2014. [online] Available at: https://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/attachments/Law%20Oration%20Crennan%202014%20-%20Final_0.pdf [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].