If the consumer guarantees provided by the Australian Consumer Law are not met, the consumers are at liberty to be indemnified and provided with remedies. The remedies may be claimed either against the supplier or manufacturers (Smith and Burke, 2007).
With respect to the fact that the goods are required to be of acceptable quality the following factors must be taken into consideration;
• The goods must not be defective quality; they are required to be safe as well as long-lasting.
• The appearance of the goods must be such that they are acceptable to the consumers.
• The goods must be capable for being used for all such purposes for which they are meant to be used (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman, 2008).
The remedies available to the consumers in such cases have been laid down under the Part 5-4 of the Australian …show more content…
• Being enticed by the offer many customers availed the offer.
• But in reality they were provided a mini radio in place of a music player. This conduct of Trop Nosh may be regarded to be deceptive and misleading. Moreover, the radio had manufacturing defect owing to which many of the consumers suffered injuries.
• In this case Trop Nosh is on the one hand guilty of publishing deceptive and misleading advertisement and on the other hand, they have committed breach of consumer guarantees as provided under the ACL.
Conclusion
The conclusion which may be drawn from the above discussion may be summarised as follows;
• Yes, the conduct of Captain Chicken Pty. Ltd. entitles Trop Nosh to an action under the trademark law for passing off. Captain Chicken Pty. Ltd. have attempted to pass off their burger as that of Trop Nosh by adopting similar get up and deceptively similar
With respect to the fact that the goods are required to be of acceptable quality the following factors must be taken into consideration;
• The goods must not be defective quality; they are required to be safe as well as long-lasting.
• The appearance of the goods must be such that they are acceptable to the consumers.
• The goods must be capable for being used for all such purposes for which they are meant to be used (Davison, Monotti and Wiseman, 2008).
The remedies available to the consumers in such cases have been laid down under the Part 5-4 of the Australian …show more content…
• Being enticed by the offer many customers availed the offer.
• But in reality they were provided a mini radio in place of a music player. This conduct of Trop Nosh may be regarded to be deceptive and misleading. Moreover, the radio had manufacturing defect owing to which many of the consumers suffered injuries.
• In this case Trop Nosh is on the one hand guilty of publishing deceptive and misleading advertisement and on the other hand, they have committed breach of consumer guarantees as provided under the ACL.
Conclusion
The conclusion which may be drawn from the above discussion may be summarised as follows;
• Yes, the conduct of Captain Chicken Pty. Ltd. entitles Trop Nosh to an action under the trademark law for passing off. Captain Chicken Pty. Ltd. have attempted to pass off their burger as that of Trop Nosh by adopting similar get up and deceptively similar