Guarantees Under Australian Consumer Law â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Guarantees Under Australian Consumer Law? Answer: Introducation The Australian Consumer Law is provided in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2010 (Cth). The law is applicable on all business transactions in Australia which have a value of below $40000. However on products which have the value of more than $40000 the ACL is applicable in case marketing products have been purchased solely for domestic and household purposes. As provided by the ACL products and services when purchased have implied guarantees that they would be in accordance to what have been asked for or what is generally expected from the products. In case such implied guarantees are not present in relation to goods and services the customers can exercise their consumer rights. Under Consumer Warranties a product must be that of an acceptable quality, must look acceptable and must be in relation to what is reasonable expected from them. The goods have to be appropriate for the use they were requested for. All extra promises made along with the goods also have to be met by the sellers. It is expressly provided by the ACL that any attempts by a seller to not include consumer warranties in a contract are regarded as void. The failure by a seller to repair or replace the goods, not providing cost of replacement or equivalent goods or not providing payment for repairs is regarded as an attempt to restrict the liability for consumer guarantees. In the case of Campbell v Lane (No 2) [2013] QCATA 307 it was ruled by the court that the goods sold by a seller have to be reasonably fit for the disclose purpose. If the words are not fit for the purpose which have been discussed by the buyer while purchasing the words it would be a breach of consumer guarantees and the buyers would be entitled to compensation. In the case of Norman Enterprises Pty Ltd Leimo Australia v Deng [2013] QCATA 047 it was provided by the code that the inclusion of an exclusion clause into a contract with restrict the liability of the trader to make a refund in relation to the goods was not a valid term of the contract as consumer guarantees cannot be avoided so the inclusion of an exclusion clause. Application In this case Riviera had clearly provided to QB4 while making the contract that young children are coming along with her and the company should make necessary arrangements to provide them very girls which are safe and suitable for them. However the vehicles which were provided to the children hard faulty economics and design problems with respect to the manufacturers Tetrabikes. The vehicle was also not suitable for young children and was designed for an age group of 12 to 15 years old teenagers. Riviera child Kang was injured because of the use of such vehicle. Therefore in this case it is clear that the goods provided by QB4 did not match the requirements which were mentioned by Riviera. In addition her child have suffered injuries. Therefore as per the rules of consumer guarantees she is entitled to a refund as well as compensation for the injury caused to her child. As discussed by the principles in the above case it is clear that an exclusion clause cannot be incorporated into the contract which has been made to exclude the liability copper cellar with respect to consumer guarantees. Therefore the exclusion clause which Quad bikes attempted to add into the contract to evade the liability with respect to damage or loss to the customers would not be held as a valid term of the contract. In certain circumstances a contract is team to be discharged as a super winning situation which is not in the control of the parties to a contract has occurred. According to the case of Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 where there is a contract between Y and Z where Y consents to hire Zs property on a specific night may result in a frustrated contract in case because of Fire the property is destroyed before the performance date of contract arrived. Only limited circumstances is doctrine of frustration is applicable. In relation to frustration the courts are mostly and synthetic in case the event would have been anticipated by the parties and the parties may have taken specific actions against it polka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [I9431 A.C. 32 According to the provisions of common law incase frustration of contract established it results in automatic termination of the contract no option to discharge or to perform therefore exists at common law. The loss which has resulted out of such frustration as per the rules of common law lies where it falls according to Cantiare San Rocco S.A. v Clyde Shipbuilding Engineering Co. Ltd. (1924) A.C. 226. In case of frustration of contract the court must be satisfied that there is no provision in the contract with states that the contract would continue even if such event has occurred. However there is an exception to the common law rule of frustration provided by the Frustrated Contract Act 1978 NSW. That states that frustration discharges the promise but only to the extent which is required to help a claim for damages for violation prior to frustration In the given Nicky has gone into a contract with PMSC to provide them a Boat which is one of a kind so that she can take the children to see penguins. However after two trips it has been provided that as per the new regulations come into effect the boat has to undergo safety alterations and would not be able to operate for 3 months. It can be clearly provided that these circumstances beyond the control of both the parties to the contract as such implementations of laws would not have been forcing by either party to the contract. Such circumstances it can be provided that PMSC has the right to terminate the contract through the doctrine of frustration. In this case Nicky is not entitled to get the money she has paid to PMSC for the contract as she has already availed to trips. However Nicky according to the above discussed rules is entitled to claim $800 as she has paid $2000 and both the trips only cost $1200. Conclusion PMSC can terminate contract through frustration Nicky is entitled to receive compensation of $800 References Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. [I9431 Accounting. 32 Campbell v Lane (No 2) [2013] QCATA 307 Cantiare San Rocco S.A. v Clyde Shipbuilding Engineering Co. management. (1924) A.C. 226. Frustrated Contract Act 1978 NSW Norman Enterprises Pty Ltd Leimo Australia v Deng [2013] QCATA 047 Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2010 (Cth). Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3