Business Law-consumer protection

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:



Advice to Peter on his Legal Actions

Peter can use Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to protect his right (Thampappilai, Tan, Bozzi and Mathew 2015). First, Peter purchased a new caravan and Toyota SUV from the caravan dealer. In addition to this, he cautiously read, understood and critically analyzed the given brochure that offered specifications for using the vehicles. Second, the caravan begun producing clunking noise suffered a major failure and almost broke into two parts. That was after two months of driving it over unmade dirt roads. However, the caravan brochure stated that it could handle the roughest terrain. Additionally, Toyota SUV brochure indicated that it easily pulled a 2000 kg caravan all day; however after using it to pull 1800 kg weight trailer for only two hours, the Toyota SUV developed some problems.

Therefore, the Caravan and the Toyota SUV were not durable and safe, and their quality did not meet s 54 of guarantee as acceptable quality (Thampappilai, Tan, Bozzi and Mathew 2015). Furthermore, the Toyota SUV and the caravan had 12-month unconditional warranties, and Peter broke none of its items. As such, the trailer manufacturer of Adelaide could not refuse to mend it. Lastly, Peter did not irrationally use the Toyota and the caravan harshly and the 12 months unconditional warranties are valid. Under the ACL s 261, the caravan dealer should repair or replace Peter’s Toyota SUV and trailer. In this case, on the other hand, Toyota dealer is the seller while Peter is the consumer. Peter would sue the Toyota dealer for breach of warranty (Baskind 2015). Warranties are specific types of implied or express facts’ representations which the law would impose against the warrantor (Baskind 2015). The Australian Consumer Law offers for particular guarantees concerning contracts for providing services.

S 60 states that; if an individual supplies services to the consumer in commerce or trade, a guarantee exists that the services ought to be provided with appropriate skill and care. Therefore, it is illegal for any supplier to provide goods/services without competence and attention. In this case, Peter (consumer) was issued the Caravan and the Toyota SUV without proper skill and care. One of the factors for proving inadequate care is the exhibition that improper competence and care were present. In this case, the inappropriate skill and attention were shown by offering the Toyota SUV and caravan to Peter without giving the proper instructions on how to maintain the vehicle. As such, Peter was not informed of the minimum driving speeds and whether it was unsuitable to drive the caravan on unmade dirt roads. Additionally, Peter was not advised where to take the vehicles to repair in case they got damaged while buying them.

To prove that injury was caused, the consumer should show the deceitful action that the seller did. That can be demonstrated by Single Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 287 ALR 249 which marketed that its broadband programs in general comprised of separate off-peak and peak components (Heafy 2013). However, the time the peak quota was surpassed, the download pace slowed without concern to the off-peak or overall quotas’ usage. The court enforced a fine of $3.61 million for the 11 breaches. The factor to discuss in verifying that there was a deceitful action committed is the fact that the brochure gave misleading information regarding the caravan. The trailer was not designed to be driven on very rough terrain as the booklet stated. Additionally, the SUV Toyota could also not survive being driven the whole day at low speeds contrarily to the brochure’s specifications.

Advice to Toyota Dealer

The Toyota Dealer would defend herself that the vehicles’ modifications were changed when they were transported to the major city of Adelaide instead of Alice Springs (Merkin 2013). As such, Toyota dealer would claim that she indicated in the warranty terms’ that Toyota dealership could only repair her vehicles. Additionally, Toyota dealer could defend herself that Peter assumed the risk (Merkin 2013). As such, she could assert that Peter knew the caravan was not supposed to be driven off the sealed road but, Peter went on driving it on unmade dirt roads. Also, she could absolve herself from the offense by arguing that Peter knew the SUV did not require being driven at very low speeds.


Baskind, E 2015, Commercial Law: Law Revision & Study Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heafey, RJ 2013, Product Liability: Winning Strategies and Techniques. Washington: Law Journal Seminars.

Merkin, R 2013, A Guide to Reinsurance Law. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.

Merkin, R 2013, Privity of Contract: The Impact of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Thampapillai, D., Tan, V., Bozzi, C, and Mathew, A 2015, Australian Commercial Law. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.