Customer Protection Law
Customer Protection Law
Just like any other developed nation, Australia has its own piece of legislation that provide the rights of customers with regards to their purchase and consumption of products offered by the various manufacturers. In particular, the Australian Consumer Law provides consumer rights and guarantees for products and services that they purchase (Morandin & Smith 2011, p. 27). The experiences of Sarah in the case study provide the challenges that many consumers encounter with regards to purchased products and services. With regards to Sarah’s purchase of the “luxury, deep filled duck-down pillow”, Sarah had a right to have a guarantee of the product. It’s important to mention that, after 1 January 2011, products and services had to offer guarantees of acceptable quality that provide what the customer could have expected from the products at a certain cost. The pillow was responsible for causing a severe rash and allergic reaction on Sarah, meaning that it had not been safe and had not met the extra promises made with regards to quality, performance, and condition. This was enough proof for Sarah to seek a refund from the retailer or manufacturer of the pillows. The decision for a full refund is based on the fact that the pillow was unsafe and affected the health, as well as productivity of the consumer (Morandin & Smith, 2011, p. 27). The Consumer law also grants Sarah the right to seek compensation for losses caused by the problems with reference to the medical cost treating the rashes. In addition, Sarah has a right to seek damages from the manufacturer of the pillows for the failure of the consumer guarantee.
With regards to the breakage of the game and injury to Sarah’s child, she had the right to either seek the repair or replacement of the game, or a refund for the purchase amount. This case has a correlation to the previous case, but where the game can be established to have had a minor problem, this would warrant for the consumer to seek for the repair of the product within a reasonable time. However, the cost incurred during the repairs should be borne by the retailer or manufacturer. Another perspective to the case may be based on the injury to the child, where Sarah has the right to seek compensation for the product not providing a consumer guarantee, as the manufacturer of the product should have tested whether the product was safe for their users (Australian Government 2014, p. 5). Given that the product broke down just after Sarah had purchased it was enough ground for her to seek for the replacement of the game or the refund of the purchase price, given that the injury can be considered a major problem.
The matter relating to the “gel-filled sales” may be applied to the Australian Consumer law, specifically the statute relating to misleading claims and advertisements. Sarah bought the shoes due to the sales pitch that they had a gel that made it easier to train on a treadmill, but after she wore the shoe it had none of the so-called gel. The section states that no matter how a business communicates with the consumer, whether through advertising, online, packaging, logos endorsements or sales pitch, the consumer always has the right to receive accurate and truthful messages about the product and service they buy. For that reason, Sarah had a right to return the shoes to the Jones and seek a refund.
Legal liability to Jones
Under the Australian Consumer Law, Jones has breached a number of provisions as described above. To start with, where the pillow caused a severe rash on Sarah, Johns is liable to give Sarah a full refund of the purchase price of the pillow after she had returned the product. In addition, Jones is also liable for damages that may come as a result of the medical expenses incurred by Sarah, and which are directly associated with the pillow. This is also the case with the injury caused to Sarah’s son as it was caused by the game, and thus, Jones had to guarantee the safety of the games before selling them to the consumers, hence Jones’ liability (Corones 2012, p. 56). More so, Jose was required to either repair or replace Sarah’s game given that she returned the product within a reasonable time. It was upon Jones to ascertain whether the game had a major or minor problem, and where he establishes that the problem was minor, either repair or replace the game altogether. Finally, Jones was liable for misleading statements made about the shoes; thus, was liable for damages that were caused by the shoes, meaning that he was liable for the purchase price and the loss of productivity with regards to Sarah.
List of references
Australian Government 2014, Consumer rights, Viewed from
Corones, SG 2012, The Austalian consumer law, Lawbook Co., Rozelle, N.S.W.
Morandin, N & Smith, J 2011, Australian Competition and Consumer Legislation 2011, CCH
More Important Things