It is believed that the retailer refused the customer the right for a refund for a refrigerator that had been faulty and required a replacement refrigerator twice. The issue being taken to the courts were whether or not the customer had the right to refund for a refrigerator that had been faulty. Under the act of the Australian Consumer Law it found three offences that the retailer may well have been in breach of, the three breaches found under the Australian Consumer Law were sections 18, 29(m) and …show more content…
S29 under the same act states: False or misleading representations about goods or services (1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services: make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy (including a guarantee under Division 1 of Part 3-2); and s54 mentions Guarantee as to acceptable quality(1) If: (a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and (b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction. Through the mentioning of the three sections in Australian consumer law it can be put to our attentions that the government has put in place a competent delegated legislation which objectives is to give consumers throughout Australia the same rights and remedies whilst businesses still had the same obligations and responsibilities to customers without the expensive differences in the law embarks Corones, Clarke (2015, p.3). Additionally they highlighted one of the main objectives of this parliamentary law was to “deliver a seamless economy” stated by the National Partnership Agreement made by the Australian government in