1- There have been many instances where Bolt Pty ltd (‘Bolt’) an Australian electronics company have come under contravention of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). In Bolt’s advertisement promoting their new phone model the “Bolt Worldly” they have stated several terms in which is unethical and against the ACL. The issue with the advertisement firstly is that Bolt have claimed that the product Bolt “Worldly” is made “For Australians, by Australians” however the advertisement has in fine print at the bottom of the page *’produced and manufactured in Thailand’. This is in direct breach several sections of the ACL specifically section 29 ‘False or misleading representations about goods or services’. Bolt’s advertisement statements have the potential
…show more content…
Lily stated that the laptop battery lasted for 12 hours without charging which met the needs by Hannah for her university lectures. As Hannah purchased the product for $2000 on the assurance that the product would do as she needed Hannah has the right to claim remedies from Bolt. The ACL is in place to protect consumers and to avoid unfair business practices. As Bolt is an Australian company, they fall under the ACL and therefore must abide by the guarantees. The fact that Bolt has stated to their customers that they are not bound by the guarantees of the ACL is a huge contravention of the ACL and could cause the company to shut down. Hannah has been wrongfully mislead by Bolt and is entitled for remedies For Hannah this has caused severe disruptions to her usual schedule and has impacted her ability to perform daily tasks. The fact that Hannah was led to believe and given certain assurance and guarantees that the Bolt computer would last the whole day at University to then die within 4 hours would have caused Hannah emotional grief and disappointment as well as putting her out of her way in attempting to return the computer whilst looking to get a new replacement computer that will fulfil her needs. Hannah could take legal action against and have a legitimate case to receive …show more content…
Bolt’s business takes up 95% of Crisco’s annual revenue and without it would not be able to continue to operate. Bolt attempting to rattle Crisco have rattled and bullied the small business into fearing for their longevity after the letter they received at the end of the financial year. Bolt have come under contravention of the ACL due to content and context of their letter to Crisco. Bolt have violated section 21 of the ACL as they have engaged in “Unconscionable conduct in connection with a service”. Bolt have conducted unconscionable conduct with Bolt as the new terms of the contract proposed by Bolt is evidently unfair on the behalf of Crisco as the deal is likely to leave them struggling to continue business. Continuing from section 21 of the ACL Bolt is also violating section 22 of the ACL which relates to the matters violated in section 21 of the ACL. As Crisco is a very small company and Bolt is there biggest client, in any dealings with the two companies Bolt is likely to have a significant leverage power. Bolt has used this leverage to strongarm Crisco into agreeing to the terms of the new proposed contract with the knowledge that Crisco is in little room to negotiate. This violates section 22 (1)(a) as Bolt is using the strength of their bargaining position to intimidate Crisco. Crisco has the right to go over the
Lily stated that the laptop battery lasted for 12 hours without charging which met the needs by Hannah for her university lectures. As Hannah purchased the product for $2000 on the assurance that the product would do as she needed Hannah has the right to claim remedies from Bolt. The ACL is in place to protect consumers and to avoid unfair business practices. As Bolt is an Australian company, they fall under the ACL and therefore must abide by the guarantees. The fact that Bolt has stated to their customers that they are not bound by the guarantees of the ACL is a huge contravention of the ACL and could cause the company to shut down. Hannah has been wrongfully mislead by Bolt and is entitled for remedies For Hannah this has caused severe disruptions to her usual schedule and has impacted her ability to perform daily tasks. The fact that Hannah was led to believe and given certain assurance and guarantees that the Bolt computer would last the whole day at University to then die within 4 hours would have caused Hannah emotional grief and disappointment as well as putting her out of her way in attempting to return the computer whilst looking to get a new replacement computer that will fulfil her needs. Hannah could take legal action against and have a legitimate case to receive …show more content…
Bolt’s business takes up 95% of Crisco’s annual revenue and without it would not be able to continue to operate. Bolt attempting to rattle Crisco have rattled and bullied the small business into fearing for their longevity after the letter they received at the end of the financial year. Bolt have come under contravention of the ACL due to content and context of their letter to Crisco. Bolt have violated section 21 of the ACL as they have engaged in “Unconscionable conduct in connection with a service”. Bolt have conducted unconscionable conduct with Bolt as the new terms of the contract proposed by Bolt is evidently unfair on the behalf of Crisco as the deal is likely to leave them struggling to continue business. Continuing from section 21 of the ACL Bolt is also violating section 22 of the ACL which relates to the matters violated in section 21 of the ACL. As Crisco is a very small company and Bolt is there biggest client, in any dealings with the two companies Bolt is likely to have a significant leverage power. Bolt has used this leverage to strongarm Crisco into agreeing to the terms of the new proposed contract with the knowledge that Crisco is in little room to negotiate. This violates section 22 (1)(a) as Bolt is using the strength of their bargaining position to intimidate Crisco. Crisco has the right to go over the