Business Law And Regulations For Competition And Consumer Products

Valid Contract between Bill, Jill, and Dodgy Pty. Ltd.

Describe about the Business law for /Competition of Busineessn Procuct.

1. As per the given study, Bill and Jill intended to purchase a cafe on 1^st July 2016 from the Dodgy Pty. Ltd. Therefore, the offer was made from behalf of Bill and Jill to the Dodgy Pty. Ltd. There exists an offer in the contract made between the two parties. The ownership of the cafe was obtained as the offer was made keeping certain considerations’ and terms in the offer. There exists acceptance of the offer in the present case. Thus, opinion can be made that the contract between Bill and Jill along with Dodgy Pty. ltd is a valid contract as there was consideration made followed with acceptance of the offer. 

Nevertheless, the case focuses on another added factor that is worth the discussion. As per the law, a contract can be considered void or illegal, if there is deceptive or misconduct present, certain specific matters are misinterpreted and the conduct is unconscionable in nature. In the given case, the Dodgy Pty. Ltd had cheated the other party by dishonestly stating that the weekly takings of the cafe is $ 10,000. The estimated cost of the business was stated to be $3000 per week. However, while continuing the business, Bill and Jill came to know that the weekly taking was about $2000 on an average that as lower that their cost. Therefore, it can be inferred that there has been a misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of the contract made between Bill and Jill and the Dodgy Pty. Ltd. There is a need for the plaintiff to enter as misinterpretation of contracts signifies false statement. Three elements are useful in establishing the misinterpretation of contract. The three types of misinterpretation are negligent, fraudulent and innocent misinterpretation. Fraudulent misinterpretation can be termed as that statement that is undertaken with the intention to mislead the plaintiff fraudulent interpretation and simultaneously remain ignorant about the truth. The given case indicates that a fraudulent interpretation has been carried out as Dodgy Pty. ltd provided Bill and Jill with a false statement that was done intentionally. The false statement regarding the weekly takings and the cost of the business is a fraudulent misinterpretation carried out by Dodgy Pty. Ltd. The Australia Consumer Law, Chapter 2 and section 18 (1) states that ambiguous or unreliable contract with a party in a contract is strictly prohibited. On addition, the misinterpretation or false statement about goods and services are even prohibited by the Australian Consumer Law Section 29. The section of the act allows the sufferer to claim penalty from the defendants (Austlii.edu.au. 2015). Bill and Jill is therefore eligible for claiming for the damaged they suffered from Dodgy Pty. Ltd. or the contract will be considered as an inexistent. A person can be changed guilty if as per the Misrepresentation Act 1972 Part 2, the person wrongly interprets the contract. In this case, the corporate body is responsible for the offense to which Jill and Bill are entitled.

Misinterpretation of Contract and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The corporations are restricted from conducting any sort of misleading act or deceiving act by the Trade Practices Act 1794 Section 52 (Martinluitingh.com. 2014). Thus, Bill and Jill are allowed to claim the loss and damages they suffered from the contract. 

On the other hand, Dodgy Pty. Ltd is responsible for paying for the damages to Bill and Jill based on the Fair trade Act 1987 Section 56. This law also with the misleading conduct that restricts performing misleading act while conducting trade or business with other parties.

2. As per the given case, the pizza business is running successfully that is owned by Hugh. Since, Hugh intended to trim down the operating cost of the business devoid of carrying out listing of the papers, they used to advertise the business, and a serious issue came up. The company faced issues as they offered stale and outdated ingredients in the food products they sold although the company advertised and claimed to use only fresh ingredients. A number of customers were reported to fall sick while one of them died out of serious food poisoning. Based on the above issues, there are several number of laws related to these issues. The government and the customers are allowed to take significant legal action on the company that is found guilty on this context. As the business owner had no registration of the documents, yet the advertising process is carried out makes the business owner guilty under the law of Business Names Registration Act 2011 Part 2 and Section 18 (Divanbeigi and Ramalho 2015). As per this act, it can be stated that it is a serious offense to carry out business in an unregistered manner. section 18 (1)  of the act specially stresses that if a trade runs on a name that is unregistered in the register of Business names, then it is a crime and the owner can be punished for the act. The penalty unit is $ 110, which is one of the 30 penalty units considered in the act (Legislation.nsw.gov.au. 2016). As the owner of the business, advertises UberPizzaDelivery service without registering its documents with the law, makes the person offensive under the Business Names Registration Act 2011 Part 2 and Section 18 (Legislation.gov.au. 2014).

The Food Safety and Standards can also be considered appropriate for the given case and the Food Act of 2003 and Food Regulation act 2015 are associated with the issue. Under the Food Act of 2013, the business owner is guilty as he uses stale and unfit ingredients that cause the consumers to fall ill. Selling of unsafe food is a serious offense under the part 2 and section 14 of the act. The section restricts the sellers from selling food products in the market that are unfit for the consumption. As Hugh was selling stale and un-fresh food to the customers, he is liable as per the act. Hugh might have to suffer from two years of imprisonment or a penalization of 1000 penalty units ir even both if the customers suffering from poor health owing to the food value, takes action with the help of the act. According to section 14 (2), as the owner was quite aware of the use of unsafe ingredients into the food production, makes him answerable (Austlii.edu.au. 2016). The section states that selling food even after knowing that the food is unsafe is a crime. In case of a corporate, a penalty of 3750 punishment units can be charged if found guilty and seven fifty fine units when an individual is found guilty.  Moreover, under the section 15 of Food act in 2003, Hugh is responsible as it offers stale and outdated ingredients even though it advertises using fresh ingredients. The act deals with the delivery of counterfeit food report through promotion. Section 15 (1) and (2) of the food act 2003, that if an entity have partial or complete knowledge about the fact that the customers are relied on the description of food given by the owner and might face health issues from the consumption of such food and yet provides fake description can be severely punished. An imprisonment of up to two years or 1000 punishment units or equally can be charged on the business owner, if found guilty. 

Under the Food Regulations Act 2015 Part 2 Clause 8, the customers are able to take legal action Hugh as the person has been carrying out business that is not registered. Under the Australian Consumer Law (194), the distressed party can take actions. As per the law, if an offers goods that are against the safety standards it is an offence and legal actions can be taken against the supplier. The individual found guilty is liable to pay $220000 while the corporate needs to pay an amount of $1100000 (Austlii.edu.au. 2015).

Hugh is liable to pay the customers for their loss and damages, as he is found guilty under the personal liability as well as the vicarious liability for ignoring the duty of being carefull. The consumers have the power to take the person to court that might end up closing down of the business completely (Kitagawa 2015).

In the given case, the fraudulent misinterpretation have taken place as a false description about the products are delivered to the customers to make the customers interested in buying the products. Therefore, under the Australian Consumer Law Section 29, the owner of the pizza business needs to face a pecuniary penalty paid to the customers. An example of the huge false representation made by the business is ACCC v Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd (1999).

References

Austlii.edu.au. (2015). COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 – SCHEDULE 2The Australian Consumer Law. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/sch2.html [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Austlii.edu.au. (2015). MISREPRESENTATION ACT 1972. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ma1972224/ [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Austlii.edu.au. (2016). TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 – SECT 52Misleading or deceptive conduct.. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/tpa1974149/s52.html [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Australiancontractlaw.com. (2016). Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke. [online] Available at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/legislation/cthacl.html [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Divanbeigi, R. and Ramalho, R., 2015. Business regulations and growth.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (7299).

Kitagawa, Z., 2015. Administrative Regulations (Vol. 4). Doing Business in Japan.

Legislation.gov.au. (2014). Business Names Registration Act 2011. [online] Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011A00126/ [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Legislation.nsw.gov.au. (2016). NSW Legislation. [online] Available at: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2003/43/part2 [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].

Martinluitingh.com. (2014). Trade Practices Act – Martin Luitingh Barrister. [online] Available at: https://www.martinluitingh.com/trade-practices-act.html [Accessed 15 Sep. 2016].