The Instant Case of Was Heard in The Supreme Court of Tasmania. (australian Legal Information Institute, 1996) Chapter Iii of The Constitution Labeled as “the Judicature” Provides for The Establishment of High Court of Australia. It Also Gives the Power to The Parliament to Establish Other Federal Courts Including State and Territory Courts. (the Australian Constitution, 1900) These Courts in Australia Are:
Federal Courts: high Court of Australia (the Topmost Court in Australia), Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court.
State Courts: supreme Courts (topmost in The State), County or District Courts, Magistrate Courts. (supreme Court of Tasmania, 2020)
However, in The State of Tasmania, There Are only Two Levels of Courts – Magistrate Courts and Supreme Courts. the Decision of The Supreme Court of The State Can Be Challenged in The High Court of Australia Whose Decision Would Be Final and Binding.
This Is a Civil Case. in Australia, Laws Are Divided Into Statute Law and Common Law. in Such a Sense, It Can Be Divided Into Criminal Law or Civil Law. in The Instant Case, the Relationship Between the Private Parties Is at Stake Which Makes It of A Civil Nature. in Civil Law Damages Are to Be Paid to The Plaintiff and In Criminal Law Imprisonment of The Accused Takes Place. in This Case, Damages Are Being Paid Which Confirms that It Is a Civil Matter. (state Library, Nsw, 2019) the Onus of Proof Lies on The Plaintiff in General Regarding All the Essential Elements. (walsh Ja, 1967)
The Main Issues Discussed in This Case Are as Follows:
The Court in The Instant Case Gave Full Rights to The Owner of The Vessel as Well as The Sailing Master. These Rights Are Not Even Limited. if Such Owners Are Present in The Field of Commerce and Business, They Have All the Right to Decide the Fate of The Customers or The Consumers. the Court at Last Said that The Any Person Who Enters Into Business Has to Deal with The Conduct of The Businessman or Owner of The Business Which Is Not at All Correct. This Judgment of The Court Violates the Common Law Principles. It Gives the Owners an Upper-Hand Over the Customers. This Judgment Sets the Common Law Principle in The Favour of Business Owners. in Consideration of This, if Any Person Who Is Aggrieved by The Acts of The Owner Goes to The Court, He Will Not Get Any Relief as The Court Will Favour the Businessmen. (dockside Fitness Pty Ltd, Michael Anthony Jackson and Jonathon William Michael Jackson v Brian Woods, 1996)
The Business Law Is Being Affected by The Decision in The Instant Case as The Emotions of The Plaintiffs Are Measure by Money and Damages Are Paid in The Instant Case Because of The Harm Caused to The Emotions of William Michael and His Father. the Business Law Works on The Principle that If There Is Breach of Duty of Care by The Defendant, He Would Be Liable to Pay the Plaintiff the Required Damages and Make Good the Loss Occurred. but In the Instant Case, the Owners and Sailing Master Disregarded the Rights of The Plaintiff.
In My Opinion the Outcome of The Case Is Not Fair and Reasonable as This Decision Will Impact the General Public Involved in The Business Law Including Both the Owners and The Customers. Customers Are Considered as Kings of The Economy and They Should Be Served in The Same Sense. There Was a Contract Between the Plaintiff and The Defendant but The Implied Terms and Conditions Would Come up In Such a Way Was Unforeseen. the Safety and Health Criteria Is Important to Consider and The Weight on The Yacht Too but When the Agreement Was Entered Into Between the Parties, on The Consideration that Both Michael Anthony Jackson as Well as Jonathan William Michael Jackson Should Have Been Given a Place for The Race. They Could Have Removed Any One Expect Jonathan. the Ground Taken by The Defendant to Remove Jonathan William Was Not Determinable. if In Case, There Were Any Health Issues to Him on The Voyage, It Is Not Necessary that The Same Will Happen on The Race Day. It Was an Adventurous Part of His Life Which He Missed and The Damages for The Same Were Awarded by The Court but The Part of The Judgment Which Says that The Consumers Will Have to Deal with The Conduct of The Owners of Business Will Have Impact on The Business Law in The Country as According to The Provisions of Business Law, Any Such Practice Is Prohibited and The Customers Are Guaranteed that They Will Be Paid in Case of Loss.
The Issue in The Instant Case Is Whether the Advertised Catalogue Which Stated Sale of Laptop at $200 Is an Offer and In View of It, Can Min’s Demand of The Laptop at The Same Price of $200 Which Is an Error Be Considered as An Acceptance.
Common Law Principles of Contract Law and Legal Cases
In Australia, when Two or More Parties Enter Into an Agreement Based on Offer and Acceptance, It Is Known as A Contract. There Are a Few Elements of A Contract Which Must Be Fulfilled to Make It Enforceable in The Eyes of Law. (michelle Makela, 2011) These Are:
In the Instant Case, Tu Pty Ltd Made an Advertisement Through Catalogue in Which the Price of The Laptop Was Quoted as $200 Instead of $750 Due to Some Unknown Error. However, Such an Advertisement Cannot Be Considered as An Offer. It Merely Represents the Price at Which the Seller Is Providing the Laptop. Such Display or Advertisement Is only For the Purposes that The Seller Will Accept the Advertised Amount if Any Agreement Is Made in Future. Such Advertisement Is Made to Know the Willingness of A Person to Purchase the Product. the Offer in Such Cases only Arise when The Customer Approaches the Shopkeeper with An Offer to Pay the Same Amount Advertised in The Catalogue and The Shopkeeper Accepts that Offer.
The Offer Is an Expression Made to Another Person for Willingness that Both of Them May Be Bound by Some Terms and Conditions. (australian Woolen Mills v. The Commonwealth, 1954) an Offer Should Not Be Mistaken with ‘invitation to Treat’. in The Instant Case Advertised Catalogue Is Just an Invitation to Treat and There Is No Condition to It to Which the Parties Are Bound. an Agreement in Such a Case Would Be Complete and Enforceable when Min Makes an Offer Which He Did to Buy Laptop at $200 and Tu Pty Ltd Accepts the Same. if Tu Pty Ltd Does Not Accept the Offer, There Will Be No Contract Between Them.
Min Cannot Demand the Laptop at $200 as The Offer Made by Min Is Not Accepted by Tu Pty Ltd.
In the Instant Case Ian, the Bank Manager Deceived Gina to Sign the Mortgage Documents when He Knew that Gina Is Not Good in English. the Question Here Arises as To Whether the Signed Agreement Is Enforceable when It Is Signed by Deception. and Whether Gina Can Stop the Bank from Acting upon The Agreement Which She Has Signed?
Legal Principles of Common Law Relating to Contracts and Legal Cases
Gina Is a Woman Who Is Not Good in Reading, Writing and Speaking English. the Bank Manager Has Deceived Her to Sign the Mortgage Documents of Her House for The Business Debts of Her Grandson. Here, Gina Has Signed the Document Because of The Sole Reason that Ian Told Him that These Documents Relates to The Savings Bank Account of Gina but He Did Not Disclose the True Reason or The Contents of The Document. Intention Is the Main Ingredient of A Contract, if There Is No Intention of The Party to Enter Into the Contract, It Will Not Be Considered as A Valid Contract. It Would Be Voidable Contract on The Part of Gina in This Case as She Entered Into a Contract Just on The Saying of Ian and The Terms of The Agreement Were Not Looked Into by Gina.
Gina Can Restrict the Bank from Selling Her House as The Terms of The Agreement Were Not Know to Her at The Time of Signing the Contract of Mortgage. Moreover, the Intention of Gina Was Not to Sign the Mortgage Document but To Sign the Documents Relating to Her Savings Bank Account.
The Issue in The Instant Case Is Whether It Is Legal to Make False Claims in Advertisement for Business Purposes and Whether Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Can Take Action Against Shoes R Us Pty Ltd?
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Rules, Australian Consumer Law and Legal Cases
It Is Unlawful for A Business to Make Expressions that Are Misleading or Prone to Make False Impression. This Includes Notices or Advertisement for Any Media Sources Such as Radio, T.V. or On Packaging of Goods, and Any Announcement Made by The Owners of The Business. for Instance, Your Business Must Not Make Misleading or Deceiving Claims About the Quality, Esteem, Value, Age or Advantages of Products or Services Provided by The Business, or Any Related Assurance or Guarantee. False Claims or 'passing Off' Is Also Considered Unlawful. While Evaluating Whether the Business Has Made Misleading Statements or False Claims, It Should Be Considered Whether the General Impression Made by The Conduct of Business Is False or Misleading.
In the Instant Case, Shoes R Us Pty Ltd Has Made False and Misleading Claims Online and Through Media that These Shoes Will Strengthen Muscles in Your Legs if You Wear the Shoes Each Day. Such False Claims Are Illegal According to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Rules. in The Case of (australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd, 2019), the Court Held that Misleading Information or Claims on The Website of The Airline Company Was in Contravention of Sections 18 and 29 (1) of The Australian Consumer Act. According to The Statutory Consumer Guarantees, Fares Should Be Refundable but The Airline Website Showed that The Fares Are Non-Refundable. Such Misleading Information and Claims Like the Case in Our Hand Shall Not Be Made.
The Relief in The Instant Case Will Be Provided by The Company in The Form of Penalty and Declaratory Relief to The Consumers Who in The Wake of Such Misleading Information Have Bought the Shoes.
In the Instant Case, Henry Has Advertised the Fake Antiques as Actual Antiques Which Arises a Question in This Regard as To Whether Such a Conduct by Henry Has Breached the Provisions of Australian Consumer Law ?
Australian Consumer Legislation only Consists of One Statute that Governs the Protection of Consumers and Fair Trading Practices in The Country. There Are Also Some Legal Cases on This Point.
Section 18 of Schedule 2 of The Acl Restricts an Individual Involved in Trade or Business, from Participating in Conduct Which Is Misleading and Deceptive. Acl Provides for A Wide Meaning of Conduct. in The Instant Case, Henry Has Breached the Provisions of Acl by Advertising the Fake Products as Real and Antique Which Amounts to Deception. Deceiving or Misleading Behavior Could Be Verbal Explanations Made for Promoting or It Can Also Be Written as Terms of An Agreement.
For Instance in The Event that You Bought Goods and The Dealer Offered Misleading or Deceptive or False Statements that Prompted You to Enter Into an Agreement with Them, You Can File a Case Against the Dealer Under the Provisions of Acl. Any Person Aggrieved by The Conduct of Henry Can File a Claim Against Him and His Company. Section 236 of The Acl Gives a Privilege to An Individual to Apply to A Court for Damages in The Form of Compensation in The Event that They Endure Loss Due to The Conduct of Someone Else and The Same Was Deceiving or Misleading. (competition and Consumer Act, 2010)
In the Case of Accc vs. Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in Liq), the Wholesaler, Respondent in This Case Deceived the Potential Purchasers by Stating that 5 Product Lines Were Hand Painted by Aboriginal Persons of Australia when It Was Not True. the Court Held that It Was Clear Misrepresentation on The Part of Birubi Art Pty Ltd Showing Souvenirs as Australian Indigenous Art and Artefacts. Pecuniary Penalties Were Imposed.
Any Aggrieved Person Who Has Bought Product from Henry Can Claim Damages from Him.
Australian Legal Information Institute, 1996, Dockside Fitness Pty Ltd, Michael Anthony Jackson and Jonathon William Michael Jackson v Brian Woods  Tassc 142 (15 November 1996), Available at Http://www.Austlii.Edu.Au/cgi-Bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/tassc/1996/142.Html?context=1;query=dockside%20 Fitness%20 Pty%20 Ltd,%20 Michael%20 Anthony%20 Jackson%20and%20 Jonathon%20 William%20 Michael%20 Jackson%20v%20 Brian%20 Woods%20(1996)%20 Tassc%20142;mask_Path .
The Australian Constitution, 1900, Parliament of Australia Website, Available at Https://www.Aph.Gov.Au/about_Parliament/senate/powers_Practice_N_Procedures/constitution.
Supreme Court of Tasmania, 2020, Official Website of Supreme Court of Tasmania, Available at Https://www.Supremecourt.Tas.Gov.Au/the-Court/
4. State Library, New South Wales, 2019, Available at Https://legalanswers.Sl.Nsw.Gov.Au/hot-Topics-Australian-Legal-System/what-Law-Deals#:~:Text=unlike%20criminal%20law%2 C%20most%20civil,will%20be%20between%20those%20participants.
5. Walsh Ja, 1967, Currie v Dempsey (1967) 69 Sr (nsw) 116, 125.
Dockside Fitness Pty Ltd, Michael Anthony Jackson and Jonathon William Michael Jackson v Brian Woods  Tassc 142 (15 November 1996), Available at Http://www.Austlii.Edu.Au/cgi-Bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/tassc/1996/142.Html?context=1;query=dockside%20 Fitness%20 Pty%20 Ltd,%20 Michael%20 Anthony%20 Jackson%20and%20 Jonathon%20 William%20 Michael%20 Jackson%20v%20 Brian%20 Woods%20(1996)%20 Tassc%20142;mask_Path .
7. Michelle Makela, 2011, Contracts in Australia, Gotocourt.Co.Au, Available at Https://www.Gotocourt.Com.Au/civil-Law/contracts/ .
8. Australian Woolen Mills v. The Commonwealth, (1954) 92 Clr 424
9. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd,  Fca 797.
10. Accc vs. Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in Liq) (no. 3)  92 Clr 424
Australian Woolen Mills v. The Commonwealth, (1954) 92 Clr 424
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd,  Fca 797.
Accc vs. Birubi Art Pty Ltd (in Liq) (no. 3)  92 Clr 424
Dockside Fitness Pty Ltd, Michael Anthony Jackson and Jonathon William Michael Jackson v Brian Woods  Tassc 142
Currie v Dempsey (1967) 69 Sr (nsw) 116, 125.
Common Law of Australia
Trade Practices Act, 1974
Competition and Consumer Act, 2010
Constitution of Australia, 1900
Australian Consumer Law and Rules
Crimes Act, 1914
Michelle Makela, 2011, Contracts in Australia, Gotocourt.Co.Au, Available at Https://www.Gotocourt.Com.Au/civil-Law/contracts/ .
State Library, New South Wales, 2019, Available at Https://legalanswers.Sl.Nsw.Gov.Au/hot-Topics-Australian-Legal-System/what-Law-Deals#:~:Text=unlike%20criminal%20law%2 C%20most%20civil,will%20be%20between%20those%20participants.
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
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
Min Wordcount should be 2000 Min deadline should be 3 days Min Order Cost will be USD 10 User Type is All Users Coupon can use Multiple