Introduction to Business Law - Answer 11

Issues 1

  • Whether the claim made by Steffi is legal?
  • Are there any remedies for Steffi to claim for the refund?


  • Australian Consumer Law
  • Taco Co. of Australia Inc. v. Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982)


In the light of present case and circumstances, the facts of the matter say that there was no scientific claim on the part of Joe and Andre which proves the claim of their product called "Rest and Relax Vest". Steffi is a disgruntled customer who bought the product and is highly unsatisfied with it, also she claims that the product did not bring her any change regarding the claim mention on it to speed up the post-workout recovery time up to 60%. Therefore, Steffi has lodged a complaint to ACCC about the same. In the case of Taco Co. of Australia Inc. v. Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982), the court held that there was no conduct of misleading or deceptive conduct it has legal business for 5 years before the American Franchise Taco Co of Australia arrived therefore not liable to pay any compensation. With the light of the decision provided in the mentioned case Joe and Andre clearly stated that there claim about the product is not scientifically proven therefore, they are not liable for any conduct under misleading. Certain provisions provide remedy but in case of misrepresentation Joe and Andre may have to compensate Steffi for loss also under the consumer rights she is liable to get the compensation for the damages she suffered.


As an advisor to Joe and Andre, I would like to suggest that, as the provision has provided to pay the compensatory amount to the consumer under section 259 and 29, the matter is of misrepresentation of the goods and services, therefore, Joe and Andre can claim for not claiming for the proven facts.

Issue 2

Is there any legal remedy provided for Steffi?


  • Section 259 provides the remedies for the consumer to get the damages for the loss suffered.
  • Section 29 provides remedies against the misrepresentation of the facts of goods and services.


In the light of present facts and circumstances, under section 259(1) and (2) it has been provided that, if there is any failure to comply with the failure is not a major failure the supplier shall provide the remedy for failure within a reasonable time. If refused the consumer can reject the goods and recover the costs they have incurred.

If the failure is a major failure then the consumer under section 259 (3) can reject goods and recover for compensation for the reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid and under section 259 (4) the consumer can recover the damages for their loss. Therefore, as advice to Steffi, she can recover the damages and can claim compensation as a consumer of the product. Under section 29 (1) (a)-(n), Steffi can sue Joe and Andre for false representation of the facts of goods and services.


Section 259 and section 29 of the Act as a whole provides the remedies for the recovery of the damages therefore Steffi is liable to get the compensatory amount for the damages she has suffered.

Introduction to Business Law - Answer 12


  • Whether discrimination has been caused against Boris?
  • Is there any legal remedy for Boris to pursue any legal action against Bank?


  • Anti-discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
  • Common-Law
  • Daccache v. BOC Limited (2020)
  • Secretary of Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade v. Styles (1989) 23 FLR 251
  • Thomson v. Australia Pty Ltd (2002)


In the light of present case and circumstance, the facts mentioned are that Boris is an employee at the Bank and is of 65 years of age and has also decided to work till his 70 years of age. Marshall Trump has been appointed as the manager of Boris. Boris is disappointed not been chosen as manager. In the present. New technology has been introduced in Bank for safety purposes which included swipe and passcode security systems. It requires all the employees to swipe their id card through a machine and punch in a code to enter the bank premises and to pass from one area of the office to another. Boris recently catches a serious virus and due to which his fingers have stopped functioning therefore the virus has led him in the wheelchair also because of which Boris is unable to fulfill the security requirements. Boris informs the manager about the current situation and is told by the manager either to shift the working place or get retired.

In the case of Daccache v. BOC Limited (2020), the Federal Court of Australia decided that BOC Ltd.'s conclusion on the Plaintiff worker's restricted capacity was unexplained as to his actual physical condition given the issues in his right shoulder were not an issue as he is lefthanded. The report BOC relied on the dismiss the worker included testing to lift 20 kg weights which BOC does not require in his current role; the outcome did not demonstrate complete unfitness for work. Furthermore, section 11 QADA tell the meaning of indirect discrimination which says that when a term is imposed that a person with the attribute does not or is not able to comply and a higher proportion of people without the attribute can or can comply and the term is not reasonable, also indirect discrimination includes the practices which are fair in form and intentions but discriminatory in impact and outcome and this was also held in case of Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade v. Styles (1989) 23 FLR 251.

Section 15 of the Act provides the remedies and actions against the discrimination done in the working area; therefore, Boris has a legal remedy to file a suit against Bank for the conduct towards him. In the case of Thomson v. Australia Pty Ltd (2002), the Federal Court has found Orica ltd had constructively dismissed Thomson. Also comparatively taking maternity leave. Orica Ltd unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of pregnancy when it refused to allow her to return to her previous position and duties following maternity leave. In the present matter, Boris has been in a wheelchair and his fingers have stopped working therefor he has been told either to shift the work are which may take him an hour more to travel or to get retired which is against the will of Boris.


As an advisor to Boris, Boris can sue the Bank for indirect discrimination against him, and providing him with the proper remedy to meet the requirements of the bank security check and discrimination at the work area under section 15 of the Act. Under the Act of Antidiscrimination Boris can claim against the discrimination done toward him even after informing the manager about the condition of Boris been going through and how is it causing difficulty in fulfilling the requirements of the employment.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts


  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

  • Total

  • Let's Start

500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

My Assignment Services- Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Collect Chat