According to the section 3 of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) the term ‘consumer’ is referred as follows:
A person is taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer if, and only if:
(a) The goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; or
(b) The goods consisted of a vehicle or trailer acquired for use principally in the transport of goods on public roads.
In the case Colette who is an owner of competing bakery complained of misleading customers with the advertisement of Ming’s shop. The advertisement contains the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ is turned out to be misleading as Ming affirmed that not all the eggs are free range used in his products. Hence, Colette wants to take legal action under ACL s 18 which stipulates that a person involving with trade or commerce must not engage with any misleading or deceptive activities. Colette certainly does not fall under the auspices of the definition of ‘consumer’ and thus cannot bring legal action under ACL s 18.
Section 18 of ACL is said to be contravened if three situations are satisfied. These are:
• The business has ‘engaged in conduct’
• The conduct was ‘in trade or commerce’
• The conduct was ‘misleading or deceptive or … likely to mislead or deceive’ …show more content…
Similar test must be taken place in the case given above. First one is to identify target audience and to question them whether the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ is misleading or not. Then considering a small percentage who are likely to mislead or not. Finally considering the misleading or deceptive conduct, a prudent person makes error or not. Therefore the legal action against Ming cannot be succeeded for misleading the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ as it cannot be
A person is taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer if, and only if:
(a) The goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; or
(b) The goods consisted of a vehicle or trailer acquired for use principally in the transport of goods on public roads.
In the case Colette who is an owner of competing bakery complained of misleading customers with the advertisement of Ming’s shop. The advertisement contains the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ is turned out to be misleading as Ming affirmed that not all the eggs are free range used in his products. Hence, Colette wants to take legal action under ACL s 18 which stipulates that a person involving with trade or commerce must not engage with any misleading or deceptive activities. Colette certainly does not fall under the auspices of the definition of ‘consumer’ and thus cannot bring legal action under ACL s 18.
Section 18 of ACL is said to be contravened if three situations are satisfied. These are:
• The business has ‘engaged in conduct’
• The conduct was ‘in trade or commerce’
• The conduct was ‘misleading or deceptive or … likely to mislead or deceive’ …show more content…
Similar test must be taken place in the case given above. First one is to identify target audience and to question them whether the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ is misleading or not. Then considering a small percentage who are likely to mislead or not. Finally considering the misleading or deceptive conduct, a prudent person makes error or not. Therefore the legal action against Ming cannot be succeeded for misleading the term ‘Free Range Eggs’ as it cannot be