Competition and Consumer Commission Implications †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Competition and Consumer Commission Implications. Answer: Introduction: The issues are whether the partners perform according to the agreed contract or not and will they have any right to take any action against Lance or not? According to the Partnership Act 1963, it defines the partners where they are in relation to dealing with them. It has mentioned under section 7, which explains the Rules for determining existence of partnership. It must exits according to the joint benefits. The section 10 has defined that the partners are bound to act according to the behalf of the firm. Therefore, one partner can act behalf of the others. The section 12 described that the firm will not liable for any act, which will be done by the partners. The section 13 is defined the liability of partners towards their firm where the partners are bound to act with limited partnership with the other partners and firms. If any damage occurs at the time of the performing business then the penalty will be imposed. The third party should liable for the damage and pay the compensation. The section 14A has defined that the liability of incorporated limited partnership is completely wrong and the penalty will be imposed. According to the Act, the firm can become liable if any collaboration in a partnership business performs wrongful work by their partners while running the business or any partner committed the same with the incorporation with other partners, then it will found liable for this. If any damage occurs at the time of the performing business then the penalty will be imposed. The third party should liable for the damage and pay the compensation. In the cases of Foote v Barton Property Partnership No 1 [2017], Dimitrios Christis v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2011] and Eden Construction Pty Ltd and Cesare Filardo v State of New SOuth Wales [2010] it has found the existence of partnership and the legal action has been taken against the damages. According to the case facts, it has found that Lynton is completely unaware that Lance has a purchasing limit and lance has instructed not to spend over $20,000. Therefore, according to the section 7, the existence of partnership has found. It has also stated that all the partners are bound by the terms and condition of the contract, which has signed between them. A particular amount also mentioned while purchasing the car and one of the partner, Lance has purchased a car from Lynton without maintaining the limited amount. Therefore, the sell has occurred between them that Lance has found with a wilful violation to the partnership contract while running his business. Therefore, according to the terms of business the other partners have right to found with liabilities to Lynton for his act. In the case of National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v Batty, it has found that one partner has liable due to the wrongful act, the other partners have found guilty with the same liability regarding the damage, which has done by Lynton. In that case, the Australian High Court held that the basic rule of the partnership is that every partner is liable for the wrongful act of others while they are running a partnership business. Lynton can also hold liable make other partners according to the provision of section 14A of the Partnership Act 1963. In case of a partnership, each partner is enjoying all rights according to the norms of their business and one of the rights has become fiduciary relationship. The partners are free to file any case on reimbursement against Lance and can claim damage as Lance had failed to act in good faith. As per the case study, it can be concluded that all the partners are liable the wrongful act of others while they are running a partnership business. Lynton can also hold liable make other partners according to the provision of section 14A of the Partnership Act 1963. The issue is whether the consumer has any right to compensated for moisturizer and the terms of the contract are mandatory for Saqlaim or not? The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the provision of Australian Consumer Law is stated the present fact of the case. According to section 29 of the Act, restrictions are to be imposed on the advertised statements that make false conception regarding the goods. The intention of the statement is to promote the goods in a wrongful way. It is a common principle of law that once the offer regarding a contract is being accepted, the contract become legalise and binding the contracting parties. However, the terms of the contract should have to be legal in nature and the contracting parties must have the competency to enter into the contract. According to the terms of the business the consumers must not introduced with false representation. In the case of Australian Competition Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [2003], the Australian Federal Court has found misleading and deceptive conducts, which is against of trade practice. SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd (1999) is another case of false Trade practice. Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] is another famous case where the misleading conducts has found but later Google found not guilty. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] is another case where the misrepresentation has found in the trade practice business. As per the fact in this case, the partnership is not happy with the Ute they think they have bought a lemon. They decide to sell the car to Saqlaim a refugee from Syria who has little understanding of English. Fast-talking and charismatic Lance talks him into purchasing the car. He enters a contract with a finance company to purchase the car. A violation regarding section 29 of the Consumer Law has been made and Xiaojing will be held liable for misrepresenting the credibility of the product to earn profit from the same. Regarding the second issue, it can be stated that one of the parties of the contract, Saqlaim is bound by the terms of the contract, as the terms of the contract are legal in nature. It can. Therefore, it can be stated that Saqlaim has a right to sue Xiaojing for publishing false advertisement for the infringement of section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Conversely, he is bound by the terms of the contract. The misleading and deceptive conducts has found which is against of the Australian Consumer Law. The issue is whether Felix has any right to take any action against Xiaojing regarding the non-payment of promised money or not. The provision of Fair Work Act 2009 will apply in this case. As per this Act, it is the right of the employees to get incentives during the course of their. It is one of the important law which is governed by the Australian Government for providing a fair and equal work opportunities. The employees are entitles to enjoy every rights under this law at the time of their employment. The main problem regarding the payment of incentive is that there is no uniform law regarding the same. There is a general rule that states that the relating rules can be guided by the contract or registered agreement made in between the employer and the employees. According to the legislations of Fair Work 2009, the equality bargaining is one of the basic purpose where the both the men and women share equal rights in their work place. Under the employment contract, the equality always measured by individually. The good faith bargaining is the mandatory terms where the employees will work for their organizat ion with the entitlement of industrial interest. The fact of the case is Felix a uni student aged 20 is keen to earn some income during the summer holidays. He is employed as a casual to pick lavender. He will be paid $25 cash per bag. She reneges on her promise and Felix is outraged. He wants to know if he can sue Xiaozing for the $100. The issue is whether Felix has any right to take any action against Xiaojing regarding the non-payment of promised money or not. According to the facts of this case, it has been observed that there was no written or registered agreement existed in between the two. In addition, Felix was not a permanent employee. It has been mentioned that Felix can continue his job until summer holidays only. Conclusion The problem regarding the issue can be concluded with the observation that Felix cannot sue Xiaojing for the non-payment of promised money or incentives as no necessary criteria was fulfilled in this case regarding the claim for compensation. Reference Australian Competition Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 17 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Oceana Commercial Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 174 Blackett-Ord, M., Haren, S. (2015).Partnership Law. Bloomsbury Publishing. Coffee Jr, J. C., Sale, H., Henderson, M. T. (2015). Securities regulation: Cases and materials. Corones, S. G., Galloway, T. (2013). The effectiveness of the best interests duty: enhancing consumer protection?. Australian Business Law Review, 41(1), 5-29. Dimitrios Christis v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2011] NSWCA 310 EDEN CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD and CESARE FILARDO v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2010] ACTSC 96 (27 July 2010) Foote v Barton Property Partnership No 1 [2017] ACTSC 21 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1 6 February 2013 S175/2012 Kolivos, E. and Kuperman, A., 2012. Consumer law: Web of lies-legal implications of astroturfing. Keeping good companies, 64(1), p.38. National Commercial Banking Corporation of Australia Ltd v Batty SAP Australia Pty Ltd v Sapient Australia Pty Ltd (1999) 169 ALR 1