The Australian Consumer Law (ACL), common law and equity play essential roles in enforcing the appropriate standards of conduct in contractual dealings in Australia. The ACL is consumer protection legislation that sets the appropriate standard of conduct required in commercial dealings of trade or commerce. Common law and equity ensure appropriate standards are adhered to in all transactions not covered by this legislation. Common law is also important in interpreting some of the broader statutory provisions in relation to the underlying legislative policy upon which they were founded. Section 18 governs general conduct required with respect to misleading and deceptive conduct and is a salient example of a provision that is considered rather
…show more content…
Furthermore, the common law and equity has an important connection with the ACL as it historically sets standards required in contractual dealings in trade or commerce as numerous provisions of the statute originate from previous common law or equitable decisions. Cogent examples of this approach are the provisions involving statutory unconscionable conduct and remedies and compensations.
Historically, common law and equity governed the standards of conduct required in transaction in Australia, however with the introduction the ACL , statute is now considered the preferred approach for setting the conduct standards required for contract dealings in trade or commerce. Based on recommendations of the Productivity Commission for the need of “far-reaching reforms” in the form of consumer policy framework , the Council of Australian Governments agreed on the implementation of the ACL . The provisions of the ACL broadly reflect the provisions of the Trade Practices Act . Although certain provisions have also been augmented, modified or added . Implementing comprehensive uniform consumer protection has promoted jurisdictional consistency nationwide as the ACL applies …show more content…
Accordingly, common law plays an essential role in assessing the underlying assumed policy of the provision. The legislative intention of the Act is clearly explicated in its second reading speech - to protect consumers from unfair practices . Even though s18 clearly establishes the standard required for trade or commerce transactions with respect to misleading and deceptive conduct , the Courts must consider who can be liable for such misleading and deceptive conduct . Recently, the ACCC have focused misleading and deceptive statements on the Internet . A salient example is the High Court decision in Google v ACCC . The key matter was whether the Google AdWords program displaying misleading and deceptive links made Google itself liable or just the advertiser who had contravened s18. Google argued it was a mere conduit to the advertisers’ own misleading and deceptive conduct. Academic Megan Richardson, writing before the High Court decision stated that for the Court to have read s18 in light of its assumed purpose, (protecting consumers from unfair practices) it would have to find against Google . The High Court majority adopted a contrary view on the matter holding that even though the sponsored links were misleading and deceptive, Google “did not itself engage in misleading or deceptive conduct,
Furthermore, the common law and equity has an important connection with the ACL as it historically sets standards required in contractual dealings in trade or commerce as numerous provisions of the statute originate from previous common law or equitable decisions. Cogent examples of this approach are the provisions involving statutory unconscionable conduct and remedies and compensations.
Historically, common law and equity governed the standards of conduct required in transaction in Australia, however with the introduction the ACL , statute is now considered the preferred approach for setting the conduct standards required for contract dealings in trade or commerce. Based on recommendations of the Productivity Commission for the need of “far-reaching reforms” in the form of consumer policy framework , the Council of Australian Governments agreed on the implementation of the ACL . The provisions of the ACL broadly reflect the provisions of the Trade Practices Act . Although certain provisions have also been augmented, modified or added . Implementing comprehensive uniform consumer protection has promoted jurisdictional consistency nationwide as the ACL applies …show more content…
Accordingly, common law plays an essential role in assessing the underlying assumed policy of the provision. The legislative intention of the Act is clearly explicated in its second reading speech - to protect consumers from unfair practices . Even though s18 clearly establishes the standard required for trade or commerce transactions with respect to misleading and deceptive conduct , the Courts must consider who can be liable for such misleading and deceptive conduct . Recently, the ACCC have focused misleading and deceptive statements on the Internet . A salient example is the High Court decision in Google v ACCC . The key matter was whether the Google AdWords program displaying misleading and deceptive links made Google itself liable or just the advertiser who had contravened s18. Google argued it was a mere conduit to the advertisers’ own misleading and deceptive conduct. Academic Megan Richardson, writing before the High Court decision stated that for the Court to have read s18 in light of its assumed purpose, (protecting consumers from unfair practices) it would have to find against Google . The High Court majority adopted a contrary view on the matter holding that even though the sponsored links were misleading and deceptive, Google “did not itself engage in misleading or deceptive conduct,