Master Chef Limited advertised their restaurant for sale. Mrs Pomeroy was interested in buying the restaurant. Under the terms of the sale contract, the restaurant had a 2 am trading licence. However, when Mrs Pomeroy visited the site of the restaurant it was not disclosed to her that a new Council rule (due to take effect after Mrs Pomeroy signed the contract) required the restaurant to close at 11 pm. Master Chef Limited was aware of the new Council rule. Advise Master Chef Limited as to whether it has breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Ravi purchased a â€˜Get you to the garageâ€™ emergency tyre repair kit from a small shop run by Emily in Kenmore, Brisbane. She knew Ravi wanted the kit for his bike. The kit contained a warning in large letters that the manufacturer and retailer of the ...view middle of the document...
Mabel could speak only a little English but she did not read nor understand written English. Lyn knew of Mabelâ€™s medical condition and circumstances. Lyn filled in the application form for Mabel to become a door to door beauty consultant and purchase the Starter Kit of Beauty Products for $1000. Lyn gave Mabel the impression that she was at risk of losing her disability pension, so working as a beauty consultant would ensure she had an income. Advise Mabel as to whether Lyn has breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).
Master Chef Limited breached section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) in remaining silent about the change in Council rules, when the contract of sale stated the restaurant had a 2 am trading licence. This would have misled a reasonable person in the position of a restaurant buyer to consider that the 2 am trading licence still applied (Henjo Investments v Collins Marrickville Ltd). Section 29 ACL does not apply because silence is not a representation.
The warning is a breach of sections 18 and 29(1)(m) of the ACL because it would mislead a reasonable consumer of bike accessories that the retailer was not liable. It was also a false representation about the existence of a remedy (TPC v Fiona's Clothes Horse P/L). Emily has breached sections 54 and 55 of the ACL because the repair kit was not of acceptable quality or fit for its disclosed purpose of repairing bike tyres.
Lyn has engaged in unconscionable conduct in breach of section 21 ACL. Mabel has inferior bargaining strength given her failing eyesight, inability to speak much English or understand written English (s22 ACL). She therefore could not understand the application form to purchase the Starter Kit. Lyn also employed unfair pressure and tactics by completing the application form and giving the impression that Mabel was to lose her disability pension (ACCC v Lux).