Australian Consumer Law Essay

The ACCC brought proceedings in the federal court against HPA charging that HPA had breached Australian consumer law by making false and misleading representation to customers and retailers when it comes to their rights under Australian consumer law. Federal law penalized HPA a $3 million civil penalty for making false or misleading representations. After an agreement between HPA and ACCC under federal court HPA admitted that it had made the following false or misleading representations:

1. HPA had, through internal policies, guidelines and scripts developed by HPA and implemented by the staff employed at help desks around the world (to deal with customer service enquiries and complaints), represented to consumers that:

• The remedies available

to consumers like HPA computer products were granted on certain terms to remedies available from HPA at its will;
• HPA computer products that were not of merchantable or acceptable how things stack up had subsequent repaired by HPA endless times heretofore consumers were entitled to a backup merchandise;
• The warranty life for HPA computer products was restrictive to a specified laid it on the line warranty period; and
• Afterwards the expiry of the laid it on the line warranty continuance, HPA would only untangle HPA computer products that were not of merchantable or acceptable status if consumers paid for the repairs.
2. HPA would not indemnify advertise suppliers if they provided consumers by the whole of a bare the expense or denier resort without HPA's more above mentioned authorisation.
3. Computer products purchased at the hand of HPA’s online five and dime shop that were not of acceptable how things stack up could not be imitated or given back unless otherwise agreed by HPA, at HPA's living alone discretion.
ACCC established the $3 million civil right, besides HPA agreed to conclude, the Orders sought individually parties included:
• Orders to prevent HPA from making the alike false or misleading representations;
• Crowd disclosures, including notice of a advice on HPA's website and online shop outlining consumers' rights under the ACL;
• Inappropriate publicity orders, including notice of a bug in one ear on HPA's website and online shop and in 10 Australian newspapers, which describes the ACCC's cook up a storm against HPA and the declarations made individually Court that HPA had made false or lying representations;
• Implementation of a consumer restore policy to deal by all of consumer complaints in rhythm to legitimate consumer rights;
• Implementation of a compliance course of action for a period of three ages for HPA employees and others engaged in HPA's business. The compliance position (and critical written policy) is designed to minimise HPA's spin of the roulette wheel of immortality contraventions of the ACL; and
• Expense of the ACCC's costs in the approach of $200,000.
Here HPA was accused on section 18 and 29 of the ACL. In section 18 it is stated that, in trade or commerce, no individual should engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or the same. It is clearer to section 29. In 29-1 (m) it is stated that a person in trade and commerce should not in terms of goods or services make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy. In 29-1 (g), (h), (i), (j) it is also stated that, a person in trade and commerce should not in terms of goods or services,
Make a false or misleading representation regarding to sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits of a good; or
Make a false or misleading representation that representative has a sponsorship, approval or affiliation; or
Make a false or lying representation mutually respect to the price tag of goods or services; or
Make a false or lying representation notwithstanding the availability of facilities for the work the bugs out or of wipe the slate parts for goods
HPA had breached all of these sections and was accused by ACCC. This case is part of the ACCC's continuing crackdown on contraventions of the ACL and part of a wider policy to raise awareness among consumers and retailers regarding statutory consumer guarantees.
2
The federal court of Australia accused discount retailer Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd, Starite Distributors Pty Ltd and the companies’ director, Douglas Edward Zappelli for product safety breaches and charged them $3.72 million and ordered to pay.

Mr Zappelli was also banned by the federal court of Australia from being a company director for six years, and restrained Dimmeys from selling any product matter to a product safety standard for the same period. The penalty allocation was, Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd $3 million, Starite Distributors Pty Ltd $600,000, and Mr Zappelli $120,000. They also have to advertise about the decision that court declared in newspapers across Victoria and New South Wales, on their website and in all their stores. They also had to destroy all their seized products with their own expense. Consumer Affairs Victoria issued proceedings in late 2012 after inspectors removed more than 18,000 items of girls’ padded swimwear, baby bath squeeze toy sets, cosmetics sets and basketball rings from Dimmeys stores in Victoria and New South Wales. The girls' padded swimwear did not able to meet the required labelling under flotation aid safety standards, the squeeze toys had a choking risk, the cosmetics sets did not label ingredients as prescribed by the Cosmetics Information Standard, and the basketball rings did not include warnings required under the Basketball Rings Standard. ACL regulators had taken four previous court proceedings for product safety breaches on Dimmeys. This is the first case which Consumer Affairs Victoria has taken in the Federal Court, which upheld the regulator’s right to bring this action in July 2013 when it was challenged by Dimmeys, Starite and Mr

Zappelli.
Government control consumer goods and product safety related services to ensure they are safe. They do it by:
• Issuing and maintaining mandatory safety standards or information standards on goods or product related services;
• banning goods or product related services, it can be either on an interim or permanent basis; or
• Imposing a recall notice which is compulsory that required suppliers to recall a good.

Now Dimmeys Stores Pty Ltd, Starite Distributors Pty Ltd and the companies’ director, Douglas Edward Zappelli clearly breached product safety under the consumer law sec 104 to 108. Under the sec it is stated that, if goods do not fulfil with an approved standards than a business must not sell the products to consumers. If a corporation supplies goods that have been declared unsafe or have been banned, they may be prosecuted by the ACCC. It also stated under sec 136-137, Require statement of sign relating to stance, composition, content, methods of formulate or processing, raw material, bearing, perform or packaging of gospel and the construct and method in which that impression is expected disclosed on the goods. A corporation may be prosecuted that supplies or sells goods that is not complied with product information standards. Under the ACL, Commonwealth, state and territory ministers can issue safety warning notices, banning products on a temporary or permanent basis, imposing mandatory safety standards or issuing a compulsory recall notice to suppliers to regulate consumer goods and product-related services.

If there is an existing criteria for safety standards that is if a product is subject to a mandatory standard, it must meet particular safety criteria before it can be sold in Australia. The girls’ padded swimwear did not meet the safety standards. The toy had a possible hazard which is already banned. Now if a product or the component used in the product is banned then it must not be sold. This ban make any commerce related to it, to supply it or offer to supply it, unlawful. There are some mandatory report notification rule for products to be labelled with. The cosmetic did not maintain the information standards. If there is warning to make for a product then the product should be visible with warning sign. The basketball product failed to do that.