Question 1 - Fair Trading Act 1993
Explain how L&P Traders may have breached the Fai Trading Act of 1986
L & P Traders may have violated the Fair Trading Act by making false and misleading representations about the furniture. The Act prohibits a person who sales goods from making false or misleading representation that goods are a particular kind or concerning the price of any goods. The furniture was vinyl and not leather, and the price was indicated as full price for $2,700
If you do not purchase the furniture, is there anything you can legally do about the advertising?
If I do not purchase the furniture, I would still be able to file a civil proceeding where the court would order L&P Traders to make a corrected advertisement at its own expense. Additionally, I could apply to the court for an injunction preventing L&P from further misrepresenting the furniture in advertisement.
If you do not purchase the furniture and see tucked away on a manufacturer’s label “Crafted with care in Australia” what civil remedy you may seek
As it does not appear as though any representation was made by L&P concerning the manufacturing of the furniture, I would not have a civil remedy.
Could the firm be criminally liable under Part V of the Fair Trading Act
The firm can be criminally liable for contravention of provisions of Part 1 and be fined for an amount not exceeding $600,000.
Question 2 – Consumer Guarantees Act
Explain to Mathew the legal implications of the Consumer Guarantees Act as it applies in this situation
Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, Layabout Limited must meet guarantees that the carpet install would be carried out with reasonable care and skill, be fit for any particular purpose that the service provider had been told about, carried out within a reasonable time and charged for at a reasonable price if you haven’t agreed a price for the work. Layabout Limited may have breached the provisions of the act because the carpet install job was not done at least as competent and average. They had failed to put underlay, and they had destroyed some of his personal property. Layabout Limited also may have breached the Act as to the price of the install. As he had checked around, the install would have cost $3,000 and Layabout charged him $4,000. If he finds this amount to unreasonable, the Layabout would be liable for this reason as well.
Questions 3 – Commerce Act 1986
Explain whether the actions of White and Steel, P and G and the community newspapers and their advertisers would contravene any of the provisions of Part II of the Commerce Act 1986
White and Steel may have contravened the Act by substantially lessening competition as they had lowered their price below all other retailers in the area thus lessening competition.
P & G may have contravened the Act by engaging in the practice of resale price maintenance. The Act forbids a supplier from making it known to another that the supplier will not supply goods unless the other person agrees not to sell the goods at a price less than a price specified by the supplier. P&G indicated to White and Steel that it would discontinue the supply the French Whiteware products to them unless they return the price to the one set by the importers.
Community Newspapers and Advertisers may have contravened the Act by arranging for exclusionary provisions. The Community Newspapers and Advertisers agreed to withdraw or exclude White and Steel based upon arrangement made with P&G and other advertisers.
References
Commerce Act 1986. (1986). Retrieved from New Zealand Legislation: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0005/latest/DLM88265.html
Consumer Guarantees Act. (2015). Retrieved from Consumer Protection: http://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/for-consumers/law/consumer-guarantees-act
Fair Trading Act 1986. (1986). Retrieved from New Zealand Legislation: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/whole.html
