• Internal Code :
  • Subject Code :
  • University :
  • Subject Name : Law

Table of Contents

Week 6.

Issues.

Rule..

Application..

Conclusion..

Week 7.

Issues.

Rules.

Application..

Conclusion..

Week 8.

Introduction.

Skipping the Start-Up Stage-

Instant Name Recognition-

Limitations.

Abiding by Franchise's Rules-

Ongoing Royalty Payments-

Week 9.

Week 10.

References.

Australian Consumer Law - Week 6 

Issues

  • Whether there is any kind of duty of care owed by Egeeay towards Barbara?
  • Whether there is any breach of duty of care?
  • Whether Barbara be treated under legislation and provisions if any?

Rule

  • Common Law
  • Civil Liability Act

Application

For the act of negligence to be demonstrated, three significant components are there to be proved. To begin with, the respondent had an obligation of the standard of care against the offended party. Second, the respondent penetrated a similar obligation meaning he screwed up in playing out the said obligation. Third, there exists an immediate connection between the penetrate of the obligation of the respondent with the misfortune or injury endured by the offended party. The term 'negligence' picked up its unmistakable quality in the twentieth century. Under the watchful eye of that, the English law or indeed, no nation perceived this term[1].

  • For our first issue, Section 5 B of Civil Liability Act [2]expresses that an individual against whom the charges for dispensing the mischief, isn't mindful as long as the hazard is predictable; or the hazard isn't quite a bit of significance; or a sensible individual under those situations would have avoided potential risk. For this, the Court needs to check the probability of the damage, that could be caused if care was not taken; or the reality of the mischief; or the prudent steps to battle the mischief; or the social utility of the movement.

What occurred with Barbara doesn't consider the obligation of care. Reason being, the mishap that occurred with her was in the pet area and the guide of the store said that after at regular intervals they are to clean the food segment. Consequently, uninformed about that, the cleaners didn't watch that area as the vast majority of the spillages occurs in the food section.

  • For our subsequent issue, to whether there was any penetrate of obligation structure the proprietor's side, so no there wasn't. The store didn't owe any obligation to Barbara, consequently, there wasn't any penetrate of the equivalent. She should be increasingly cautious about her direct as she an ardent customer of Egeeay. In the previously mentioned section, an individual can't take the supplication of mischief brought about by some other individual in light of his indiscretion. Barbara was certainly not another client since she visited there consistently. Thusly, it is conceivable that she is acquainted with the fluctuated areas of the store and knows the perils it conveys. Accordingly, she can't put the onus on the store of not satisfying their obligation. A situation where the offended party slipped on a grape in the new product segment of Woolworths market, the NSW Court of Appeal said that the store had embraced the arrangement of customary cleaning and no proof could repudiate that. Additionally, the court didn't think that it’s powerful that missing a solitary grape on the floor by the cleaning staff could cause breaking of her lower leg and what further could comprise a demonstration of negligence[3].
  • If Barbara would have fallen in the natural product area, so yes that would have established a demonstration of carelessness. An English case established the framework of the advanced law of carelessness and gave standards on the obligation of care[4]. With this reference, it could be induced that in the event that Barbara had fallen in the organic product segment, at that point yes, the proprietor was at risk, since they were to clean that area like clockwork. He owed an obligation of care and that he penetrated it by not cleaning, which brought about harms to Barbara. For a situation, J. Phillip Mahony expressed that the store owed an obligation of care towards its clients and ought to have watched that the elastic tangle was appropriately positioned after the cleaning, without which Margaret fell and broke her lower leg[5].

Conclusion

From the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the owner of the store should not pay attention and be worried about the implications of the legal charges as it can be seen that there was no negligence on the part of the owner and the mistake is done and is owned by Barbara and suffered the injury.

Australian Consumer Law - Week 7

Issues

  • Whether any defence can be taken or is present for Brown?
  • Whether the evidence should be gathered and also be established to present in the matter?

Rules

Australian Consumer Law

Application

In the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, under section 3[6] of the demonstration characterizes a purchaser or consumer, similar to a buyer is one who gains products as a shopper; an individual securing administration as a customer; an individual who pays for the buys; an individual who pays for different acquisitions; an individual who pays for having credit. The term faulty products activity implies any activity under section 138, 139, 140 or 141 in view of section 138(3) and 145. Section 3-5, division 1 section 138 states that the makers owe an obligation to remunerate the harmed individual if the security estimations of the items are undermined. In lieu of this, an individual can bring a suit against the maker and he needs to pay for the harms. Section 4-3, section 194-196 additionally expresses that an individual is said to carry out a wrongdoing under this demonstration who supplies shopper merchandise or item related administrations which don't fall under the necessary security norms.

Part 5, division 2, area 236 and division 4, sub-division A section 237 and 238 gives the solutions for the harmed parties. Because of the direct of the other party, on the off chance that one gathering endures misfortune or any sort of harms and that on the off chance that the offence goes under Chapter 2 or 3 of the demonstration, at that point the other individual needs to pay the harms, according to section 236. According to section 237 and 238, the court on the off chance that it regards fit may request to repay the harmed party for the misfortune and harms he endured.

Clothing Galore, being the retailer, had been careless in exchanging. Under ACL, which delivers exacting risk for wounds brought about by makers and providers, the Underwear Galore, being a retailer had established the encroachment. Under the previously mentioned parts and segments, being a retailer, which goes under the meaning of maker, he had not satisfied the necessary wellbeing guidelines according to the demonstration and this is the thing that should Mr Brown spotlight on. Despite the fact that he wasn't a maker however, he was the dealer and being one he was committed to thinking about his items and the security principles. Hence, not satisfying that, he is subject to pay harms to Brown for his demonstration.

A very notable case, which is very like the give realities, held that the presence of synthetic substances was adequate to demonstrate that there was heedlessness on part of the maker and was held to be subject for negligence[7].

Conclusion

On the basis of the abovementioned facts and circumstance of the issues, it can be concluded that Mr. Brown is liable to pay the compensation under the prescribed Act of Australian Consumer, as the Galore did not satisfy the duty of a seller. Therefore, it should have been exercised by Galore to take all the safety measures before selling the products to direct consumer, and such sale failed and has cost him to pay the damages.

Australian Consumer Law - Week 8

Introduction

It was in the mid-1800s when this idea became an integral factor[8]. According to the International Franchise Association (IFA), franchisee comprises among 4% of the little scope markets and about 40% of retail[9]. The points of interest for a franchise is-

  • Skipping the Start-Up Stage-

The most troublesome period of any business is setting out a strategy, leading examination of the market, the formation of the items, and afterwards making it sellable. All the stages are relieved in the event that one turns into a franchisee of an effectively notable brand. 

  • Instant Name Recognition-

With such a significant number of substitutes accessible in the market, it is troublesome these days to persuade buyers about your items. Brands like Nike, Adidas, Puma and so forth have no such concern as their name praises their quality and have picked up those long stretches of trust and certainty of the shoppers that they can get them with their eyes-collapsed.

Limitations

  • Abiding by Franchise's Rules-

Having one's own business rules is the thing that makes the business intriguing. Anyway, in this sort, business is entirely dependent on the principles and strategies set by the parent organization.

  • Ongoing Royalty Payments-

In the event that one is working in the interest of the establishment's name, for that he needs to pay the eminence. Alongside that, a significant piece of it must be paid for promoting and publicizing according to the parent organization wish.

For new participants, the franchisee could be a decent alternative to figure out how that specific business or industry functions. Subsequent to increasing a decent portion of understanding, at that point he may go for firing up his own business sometime in the future.

Australian Consumer Law - Week 9

This case was a distinct advantage case that prompted giving organizations an alternate personality in the business world[10]. The House of Lords held that the organization was a different one from that of Saloman and in this manner, he will be subject to pay his banks first[11]. This implies a property could be claimed for the sake of an organization, agreements can be marked and speculation could be made[12]. In Australia, this is perceived under section 124(1) of the Corporations Act, 2001. Anyway in, the court expressed that in making a decision about a different legitimate character of the organization, the court needs to lift the corporate shroud and look inside it, into its individuals[13]. Under (Cth) act, this cloak is inspired when, there is an organization or any extortion or any façade or hoax or a gathering undertaking or any bad form or injustice on part of the organizations[14].

Australian Consumer Law - Week 10

Part implies an individual; or a body corporate; or a body politic[15]. An individual can sue or be sued[16]. The (Cth) demonstration gives a clear least age for a part. Each organization must have at least one individual as its part with a constraint of most extreme 50 individuals in exclusive organizations[17]. Open organizations have no restriction on the number of individuals. In the event that an organization neglects to have any part, at that point ASIC is committed to document in a court for wrapping up the organization[18]. There are numerous approaches to turn into a part like when at the hour of enrollment he is an individual from that organization; second, consents to get one after the enlistment and his name is entered in the register of individuals and third, turns into a part when an organization changes from one constrained by assurance to one restricted by shares[19]. A part is frequently called to be an investor of an organization[20]. A register ought to contain the accreditations of a part as the name and address; and the date of their joining; and the number of offers they hold[21]. Alongside this, it ought to likewise contain data about the non-gainfully held offers like ones held by trustees, chosen people and so on[22]. To stop apart, the organization needs to login in the online record for that[23]. In the wake of looking at the current data, he would need to choose 'CHANGE' against whom he needs to stop the enrollment off[24]. Select 'Stop' and like this that individual will never again be an individual from the organization[25].

References for Australian Consumer Law

Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (The Coral Rose) (No 1) CA 1991

Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ‘Company shareholders’ (2014) <https://asic.gov.au/for-business/running-a-company/company-shareholders/>

Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ‘How to change company details - change to members register’ (2019) < https://asic.gov.au/online-services/company-officeholders/company-officeholders-help/how-to-change-company-details-change-to-members-register/>

Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ‘Shares’ (2014) < https://asic.gov.au/for-business/running-a-company/shares/>

Herzberg, ‘Salomon V Salomon: Have the Liquidator ’s Arguments Been Buried with Time?’ (2017) Corporate Governance EJournal, 1-13 <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1804/deff33873c3d38925bfbbd90fb530a6ef938.pdf>

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

M. Ramsay, & D.B. Noakes, ‘Piercing the Corporate Veil in Australia.’ (2001) Company and Securities Law Journal, 250-271. <https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1710089/122-Piercing_the_Corporate_Veil1.pdf>.

Lowry, & A. Reisberg, ‘Pettet’s Company Law: Company Law and Corporate Finance.’ (2012). Pearson. < https://www.pearson.com/uk/educators/higher-education-educators/product/Lowry-Pettet-s-Company-Law-Company-Law-and-Corporate-Finance-4th-Edition/9781408272831.html>

Salar & O. Salar, ‘Determining the pros and cons of franchising by using swot analysis.’ (2014) Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 122, 515 – 519 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/>

Margaret Hill v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited [2016] NSWDC 5

Grossman, ‘Franchise Bible: How to Buy a Franchise Or Franchise Your Own Business’ (2017) Entrepreneur Press, 2017 <https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Franchise_Bible.html?id=ahS9jwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y>

Kiefel, ‘Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years.’ <https://www.cla.asn.au/News/be-warned-medical-negligence/#gsc.tab=0>

Woolworths Ltd v Mcquillan [2017] NSWCA 202

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

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Add Money to your MAS Wallet
Pre Book your Next Semester Assignments
Enroll Now

Highlights

  • 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

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

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

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Get 500 Words FREE
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?