Australian Consumer Law Tutorial Answers Essay
Studmaster Pty Ltd was a landlord that owned a shopping complex in Bourke Street, Melbourne. Mrs Tran operated the “Vietnamese Lunch Box” outlet in the food court. She had little ability to speak or read English, which the representatives for Studmaster knew about. Studmaster proposed a three year renewal of her lease at $48,000 per annum plus GST for the first year and CPI increments in the second and third years.
A representative for Studmaster told Mrs Tran that:
• “We believe the new rent is very reasonable and below the market value”; and • “The rent is lower than the rental paid by other tenants in the Food Court”
Both statements were incorrect. Studmaster gave Mrs Tran 7 days to agree to the lease …show more content…
Issue: Did New Roofs Ltd engage in unconscionable conduct?
• Section 21 Australian Consumer Law
• ACCC v Lux Pty Ltd
• Explain why section 21 applies and not section 20
• Explain what the conduct was and why it was unconscionable with respect to the unconscionable factors in particular:
o Bargaining strengths of supplier and consumer:
o Understanding of any documents relating to the supply of services:
o Whether undue influence or pressure exerted or unfair tactics used against the consumer:
Issue: What are the remedies?
Law: Section 232 (injunction); Section 243 (other orders)
• Explain what an injunction would do in this case • Explain when Colin would want to void or