Understanding Consumer Guarantees And Product Liability Under Australian Consumer Law

Overview of Consumer Guarantees

As per the Australian Consumer Law (Part 3-2), the agencies of consumer protection have developed and enacted the legislation stating what consumer guarantees apply to specific goods and services. Consumer guarantees is referred to as a set of rights and remedies for defective services and goods. The consumer guarantees are based on the implied warranties and conditions. Generally according to the Consumer guarantees, Part 3-2 of Australian Consumer Law, manufacturers and suppliers provide guarantees on the mentioned goods and services sold by them to the consumers. The suppliers and manufacturers provide guarantee to all the customers who have purchased certain goods and services. Due care and skill relies on the customers. For instance, when a consumer for painting the house hires a painter he failed to remove the old paint. After a period of five months, the new paint on the wall fades. Therefore,, the painter failed to meet the guarantee of due care and skill. Such a situation was also observed in the case of ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd. However, under the Australian Consumer Law, claim can be achieved from the retailer if he fails to meet the guarantee of the consumer. The remedies that can be provided by the retailer are replacement, refund and compensation for the loss and damages.

Application

            In the given scenario, Jocelyn had purchased melons from the shop of Melon R’Us. She was carrying her fourth child and was hospitalized. During her prognosis, it was observed that her unborn child was fine and so was she. However, her responsibility towards the bills of the hospital was her concern. In such a situation the guarantee will be granted by the hospital if the Australian Consumer Law is applied. There will be no such remedies as Jocelyn did not suffer any kind of loss or damage by consuming the melons from the shop of Melon R’Us.

Conclusion

            It can be concluded that financial support will not be provided to Jocelyn as she did not suffer any damage from consuming the melons from that shop.

Question 2

Issue

The issue of this situation states whether financial compensation will be offered to Arjun under the strict manufacturer liability, Part 3-5 of Australian Consumer Law.

Rule

            The rule or the law explains the concept of product liability provisions that are the principal source of remedies against the manufacturers. According to Part 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law, liability is imposed in a pharmaceutical product liability claim where the defects are concerning the manufacturing, nature and the design. Under the Australian Consumer Law, safety defects define a situation where the goods are said to have a safety defect if their safety is not such as persons who are generally entitled to expect. Goods are not usually and always risk free. It engages the potential defects that are linked to the composition and defects of the product. The expectations of the consumers depend on relevant circumstances of the product involved as observed in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bunavit Pty Ltd. However, the product liability laws of Australia are a mixture of both the legislation and common law. An individual who has suffered any kind of loss or damage by purchasing a product can opt for compensation based on the law of contract, common law tort of negligence and breach of provisions of the Australian Consumer Law.

Application

            The case scenario states that Arjun, the customer had purchased sliced melons from Yummy Stuff in Victoria. These melons were bought from Melon R’Us. It was observed that Arjun had to seek medical treatment after consuming those melons. Arjun was suffering from listeriosis and needed proper medical treatment. Due to such an incident, Arjun had to take a few days off from his full employment as he was an accountant of a big firm. If the appropriate law is applied in this scenario, it can be observed that if any consumer has suffered any kind of loss because of the manufacturer’s negligent behavior, he will be compensated. If the manufacturer is strictly liable for the damage, he will be bound to pay for the loss incurred as per the Australian Consumer Law. Therefore, a manufacturer must provide remedy when the goods fail to meet the guarantees of the customer. A manufacturer will be solely responsible for the express warranties. According to the law, a consumer is entitled to ask for an amount to cover up any kind of drop in the value of the goods.

Conclusion

            It can be concluded stating that financial compensation should be provided by the manufacturer that is Melon R’Us to Arjun.

Question 3

            According to the Australian Consumer Law and the Foundations of Company and Common Law, the two other existing legal risks involve receipts and other proof of purchase and also when a supplier has the power to fix a problem when they are not at fault. Both of these legal risks can be applied in the given scenario. If the customer provides the proof of purchase and the manufacturer is liable, he is bound to compensate for the damages. It was observed in this scenario that Melon R’Us being the manufacturer had to compensate for the damage caused to Arjun and not to Jocelyn. Secondly, the supplier does have the authority to solve the problem despite not being at fault. Melon R’Us saved themselves from compensating the hospital expenses of Jocelyn. This is because she did not fall sick and neither did her baby after consuming the slices of melon. Therefore, the manufacturers were not at fault but were accused of being at fault for serving rotten melons to the customers. Therefore, these are the possible other risk that can occur in this given situation.