Free Contract Law Essay Essay Sample
|← Gun Rights||Mandatory Seatbelt Laws →|
Buy Cheap Contract Law Essay Essay
Many companies or manufactures engage themselves in deceptive activities that are associated with fraud. This can be attributed to their high lust to maximize profit returns from their sales. This had been witnessed also during the industrial times when companies were criticized for exploiting both their workers final customers. This extended to the recent times because several cases are still being witnessed. As a result, there was need to amend existing laws to protect consumers from such unscrupulous traders. The main articles regulating the trader-consumer relationship are; Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) and Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth). The two Acts aim at ensuring the utmost better business or trading practices by regulating the dealing between the business (trader) and the consumer (A-g Dept, 2009).
From Mike's case, Fair Trading Act 1987 is responsible for protecting consumers' rights by regulating the trader's conduct. It prohibits any unfair trading practices that may harm consumers or even other traders. Mike was entitled the right to buy the actual adhesives and the metal punch he requested from the manager. The shop could be sued in this case because they sold products that were likely to be harmful to him. This is quite evident as; "using the wrong tool for the right work" can be a source of harm to Mike (A-g Dept, 2009). However, the company has the right to be heard at the court of law regarding the circumstances through which the transaction was made. This indicated by the statement; "Choose carefully; no refunds or exchanges given under any circumstances whatsoever." The court therefore has to make a substantial ruling regarding the viability of this statement.
Likewise, Mike has full legal rights to sue the shop for using his "unfamiliar" knowledge on items to sell him the adhesives and the metal punch. Here the company is seen to exploit Mike's "disadvantages". It is quite evident that Mike made the purchases with small knowledge or rather inexperience on the use and types of the items. On the hand, manager knowingly sold him the wrong items. Under the Act; traders are legally responsible for all consequences resulting from their engagement in any unconscionable conduct. The Act further makes it clear that trader's conduct is treated as "unconscionable" if he/she deliberately employs unfair tactics leading to exploitation of the consumer's "disadvantage". It describes also extend do which one is considered to be in a disadvantage state. In this case, the relevance of the statement covers the Mike's youthful and inexperience. The shop can be sued for breaking this law during the transaction on their items. This is because he knew of Mike's inability to protect his commercial interests and the inexperience he had about the items. The case states Mike just inquired for adhesives without the knowledge on the actual country of origin despite the one labeled.
The Acts especially Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth) are pushing for fair trading between companies. From this case Mike has the right to choose the company from which he can buy his daily requirements from it. Manager by selling faulty items is indirectly tainting names of the companies producing the commodities. Mike's choices will be negatively influenced by the resulting working of the devices (A-g Dept, 2009).
The Acts also stress the need for a traders honest trading. For instance, The Fair Trading Act 1987 demands that a trader should stick to the implied conditions and warranties on their products if any. The implications mean that; a seller is expected to supply goods free of any fault other than the disclosed ones; should be of high quality and suitable for the purpose sold, and should be the same with the description provided (A-g Dept, 2009). Here Mike had total legal rights to buy the items complying with these features. Consequently, He can sue the shop or the manager for failing to abide by the stipulations. Firstly, the company did not give him any hint that the metal punch could be unusable which he later realizes after using it. Secondly, the shop was selling less quality punch which was not suitable for use with steel. Here the shop compromised the quality and the usability. Thirdly, the shop sold to Mike adhesive which indicated the US as the manufacture where material X was used. It was after the expert's knowledge when Mike learnt that the shop foiled both manufacture and the nature of materials. The company through court is required to explain why it was going against the Acts' implied conditions and warranties mandate while transacting with Mike (A-g Dept, 2009).
The process of suing the company can be through both the filing court cases and prosecuting through the authorities. For example, the issue can be submitted to Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) to be dealt with. Mike can also submit the fault metal punch to WorkSafe division to test its usability as one of legal actions against the company.
In this case; the whole company is prosecuted for the offense done by single person i.e. the manager. The company can make its local arrangement to establish a panel of legal officers to attend the court process where Mike will be the plaintiff. If this incident occurred in a partnership business it could be a bit different (A-g Dept. 2009). Usually, the law can deem the existence such relationships as partnership. This implies that the each partner may have personal unlimited liability for any accusations made against him/her. In this case, Mike would have sued the manager who was responsible for the sale rather than suing the whole company. The prosecution would therefore narrow down to personal level as a collective responsibility.