BULAW5914 Commercial Law Assignment Help

1. Advise Priya and Rahul what rights they may have to sue in the tort of negligence. Please refer to case law principles and statutory provisions in your answer. 

2. Advise Privya and Rahul if they can sue under Part 3-5 of the ACL. If so, who would they sue, and on what basis? Please refer to specific statutory provisions of the ACL in your answer. 

Save your higher grade with acquiring BULAW5914 Commercial Law Assignment Help & quality homework writing services of Expertsminds.com

Introduction

In relation to the context of commercial law, it has been observed that in civil litigation, both tort and contract claim far the most numerous. This law attempts in order to adjust for the harms or damage done by the defendant. In this case, Rahul and Priya are the parents of a child Aaru who can file a case against a company from which they have bought baby cot due to damage of their child.

Question 1:

Torts can be considered as negligent torts, intentional torts and strict liability torts. In relation to this context of a child called Aaru, Rahul, father of this child has bought a baby cot from Baby's R Us as the best item than others. After 2 months, this cot collapsed, and the child trapped inside with injury. Depending on this case, the parents of this child can file a case against Baby's R Us due to negligence regarding the products which they have sold. Depending on the provisions of Australian Consumer law, the customers can show obligations regarding damage of the products against the organisation who sold the products. In relation to the standards of consumer contracts, unfair practices of the commercial organisations have been restricted for consumer protection.

In regards to tort law, the proof of negligence requires negligence conducted by the seller. Sellers or the organisation can be engaged in sales of the products. These aspects can deliver functioning products which are not unreasonably dangerous. As per part IV of Competition and Consumer Act 2010, local government can focus on the statutory principles of this law, which can protect the rights of the customers (Federal register of legislation, 2019). On the other hand, both 2A and 2B sections of this act can impose or collect tax and can support the licence of the business. In relation to this case of the child Aaru, the parents can take legal actions against the retail store who sold the baby cot. The retail store might sell pre-damaged or defective baby cot, which has caused harm to the health condition of the child. As per the views of Fulbrook (2017), in regards to the tort of negligence, the parents may seek compensation for the mishappening.

Though Baby's R Us, the retail store has admitted that they have bought the cot from Lars Aaberg, an importer and they have lost contact with the organisation, Rahul and Priya can take action against Baby's R Us. As per section 3 of the Trade Practice Act of 1974, the authority of the organisation needs to take responsibility and reliability regarding the products (Federal Register of Legislation, 2019). The commission related to Australian Competition and Consumer can include Commissions member or Commission's division relation to performing within Commission as per section 6A of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Federal register of legislation, 2019). Based on the views of Epstein & Sharkey (2016), the agreement regarding protection to the consumers and can support the interest of the customers.

Apart from these, the legal aspects of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 can state regarding securities and protection of the products sold to the customers by an organisation (Federal Register of Legislation, 2019). The provisions of this act can protect the rights of Commonwealth authorities. On the other hand, in relation to this case, the parents of the child can seek justice as well as compensation from the authority of the organisation who have sold damaged or dispute item for a child. In this case, though there is no trace of the actual manufacturer of the damaged baby cot, the present authority of the organisation called Baby's R Us is responsible. The aspects of misleading consumers regarding consumer rights can be considered as the basic issue as per this case study.
Australian Consumer law is able to provide unfair terms to maintain standards or principles of the legal frameworks. The aspects regarding selling goods or providing services can be mentioned under the standards of consumer protection laws under the Australian government. Comparing with this case study of Aaru, for example, the case, former students' v school for Bullying can be mentioned.

In this case, the former students have won the case of negligence against the bullying school. In Oyston v St Patrick's College [2011] NSWSC 269, plaintiff has bullied by other pupils. Based on these factors, the plaintiff, the victim and the guardian have complained against the harassment. On the other hand, it has been analysed that as in this case of Aaru, he has been affected physically; in this case, plaintiff has been affected mentally. In this case, it has been observed that the authority of this school has failed to maintain a responsibility to secure both the mental and physical health of the children. Depending on these factors, the guardian can express complaint against authority regarding breach of care to the students. In relation to this case, personal injuries of the victim can be considered as the main concern related to the case of negligence. Symptoms of anxiety, depression of the plaintiff can be considered as influential factors of mental health.

Apart from these factors, Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Ltd [2014] NSWCA 98 can also be mentioned as another case example of the tort of negligence. Due to a breach of duty, the club has failed to take care of the physical health of the plaintiff. The plaintiff or the appellant has been injured at the club when she was attending the award program. It has been observed in relation to this case example that the club or the authority has failed to provide facilities related to duty of care. On the other hand, the plaintiff has appealed based on the aspects of breach of duty, which can be mentioned under the provisions of the tort of negligence.

Along with this example, the case, Taylor v Haileybury [2013] VSC 58 can be considered as an effective case example based on which an individual can relate this case of Aaru with the tort of negligence. In this case, it has been observed that the plaintiff has claimed against the defendant based on damages due to a breach of contract. Plaintiff has been appointed as a French teacher at a school. While he claimed damage due to pain as well as pecuniary loss, the authority of the school has failed to provide care to him. As per the section 134AB of Accident Compensation Act 1985, breach of duty of the school authority can be considered as negligence (Victorian Current Acts, 2019).

Thus, it has been analysed that depending on the legal factors of the regulations related to negligence, plaintiffs a file case against the defendant based on breach of care, contract and liability. On the other hand, depending on the discussion related to various acts under commercial laws of Australian Consumer Protection, it can be mentioned that parents of Aaru can take legal action against the authority of retail store.

Question 2:

After the birth of the child, Rahul, father of the child, bought best baby cot without compromising the price. As per the recommendation of the sales assistant of this retail store, Rahul has chosen Sleep Sound rather than Lullaby Wonder as it is easily portable. After two months, the cot collapsed, and Aaru trapped inside the cot got injured. Priya was shocked and treated in the hospital. Based on the factors and this case, Rahul and Priya can take legal action against the company from where they brought the cot. However, it has been observed that Baby's R Us bought this baby cot off a shipment from Lars Aaberg, an importer.

Though the parents have no concrete idea regarding actual manufacture of the sleep sound baby cot, they can blame Baby's R Us. On the other hand, the authority of Baby's R Us has admitted that they have no contact with the importer in recent times. Depending on the scenario of this case, it can be mentioned that the parents can take legal action against the authority of the legal store. Based on the views of Campbell (2016), the provisions of the tort of negligence and consumer protection can help to achieve justice against both physical and mental disorder.

Depending on the provisions of commercial law and consumer protection laws of Australia, the customers can be able to support the success of consumers against the defended due to personal injury. As per the provisions of no 22 of Civil liability Act 2002, the authority of the country can restrict the cases of negligence and domestic violence as well (NSW Legislation, 2019). In relation to the provisions of this act related to civil liability, the consumer can measure risks related to products and services. Apart from these, as per the views of He, Feng & Huang (2016), the general principles of this act can help to support the duty of care, which can influence consumer rights.
On the other hand, as per section 45C s of Interpretation Act 1987, the legal aspects of the consumer protection acts can be considered under the provisions of this act (NSW Legislation, 2019). The aspects related to the factors of consumer protection can protect the consumer rights of the customer. In relation to this case, it is important to focus on professional negligence to resist the aspects of accidental incidents regarding personal injury. In this case, Aaru has been trapped and got injured. Depending on the aspects of ACL or Australian Consumer Law, the principles of consumer protection can be mentioned (Australian government, 2019). Under the provisions of Consumer Protection laws, consumers have protections as well as expectations regarding the products and the services. Depending on the aspects of this case study of Aaru, parents of the child can show obligations as well as responsibilities as a consumer.

As per the provisions of Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Rahul and Priya can take legal action based on which they can claim compensation due to health injury of their child (Federal Register of Legislation). Unfair practices of the authority of the organisation can be considered as the issues under the provisions of this act. Under part 3 to 5, Rahul can sue the authority of the retail store though they were not sure regarding the actual manufacturer of the damaged product. The provisions of Limitation Act 1969 can set an authentic time scale based on the aspects of Australian Consumer Law (NSW legislation, 2019).

Part 1 of Chapter 3 of ACL is able to specify protections against the business practices. On the other hand, Part 2 of ACL has the target to restrict unfair practices and the activities related to business (Australian government, 2019). It has been observed that in relation to Commonwealth, ACL can be applied in the cases of state and local authority. In relation to this case example of Aaru, parents of the child can sue against the authority from where they bought the baby cot. Though this organisation is not the actual manufacturer of the product, it is liable as well as responsible as it sold this dispute or damaged product for a child. As per the views of Vines (2017), depending on the legal provisions, ACL can be considered as the national law of Australia, which can provide safety to the consumers (Australian government, 2019).

Statutory principles of ACL can influence the trading economy and trading policy of the organisation. It is important for the consumers to be sure regarding the guarantee for the consumer goods or the products valued below 40000 AUD. Chapter 2 of ACL is able to establish general standards and principles regarding business conduct. As per the views of Fell (2017), the legal term and conditions of ACL can prohibit misleading, deceptive conduct in trade and commerce. Rahul needs to focus on a legal document or the guarantee card of the baby cot provided by the authority of Baby's R Us. On the other hand, Rahul can file a case against the company and sue the authority depending on official papers and cash memo of the product.

In relation to Aaru's case, parents of the child can support legal actions against the authority as it was liable to the damage of the products within the guarantee period and it has been observed that they are responsible for the injury of the child. As per the views of Fulbrook (2017), it has been observed that without concern of the actual condition of the product, the organisation sold it for a baby and they do not have the liability of the product. These factors can be considered as the issues related to unfair practices of the business conduct.

For example, the case, Weaver v Endeavour Foundation [2013] QSC 93 can be explained to relate with the case of Aaru. This case is based on negligence against a charity organisation named Endeavour Foundation. As the defendant was liable for the injuries of the plaintiff, the defended, the organisation has been accused. On the other hand, Richardson v Mt Druitt Workers Club [2011] NSWSC 31 is another case example which can relate provisions of ACL. Plaintiff Richardson was a member of the club of the defended Mr.Druitt, Richardson slipped and fell during climbing locked gate, and however, the authority of the club has failed to take care of the incident.
It has been analysed that based on the provisions of ACL, the consumers can get opportunities and protection regarding consumer rights. In relation to this case, it can be suggested that, along with official papers of the product, parents of the child, the victim can sue the authority of Baby's R Us who are liable as well as responsible for the injury of the child.

Conclusion

This assignment has analysed the importance of tort of negligence in relation to the context of Australian commercial laws. On the other hand, the discussion of Aaru's case and other case examples has helped to identify legal actions which can be justified for the case of Aaru. Both principles and statutory provisions analyse in this assignment can help the parents to take legal action against the retail store called Baby's R Us.

Expertsminds.com accepts instant and short deadlines order for BULAW5914 Commercial Law Assignment Help solution – order today for excellence!

Get the best Federation University Assignment Help services for its academics units and courses such as:-

• BUHRM5913 Managing People Assignment Help
• BULAW2629 Managing the Legal Environment Assignment Help
• BULAW5911 Managing the Legal Environment Assignment Help
• BULAW3742 International Trade Law Assignment Help
• BUHRM6936 Strategic Human Resource Management Assignment Help
• BULAW3741 Marketing Law Assignment Help
• BULAW1502 Fundamentals of Law Assignment Help
• BULAW2612 Contract Law Assignment Help
• BULAW3732 Taxation Law Assignment Help
• BULAW1504 Tort Law Assignment Help
• BULAW1506 Legal Research Methods Assignment Help
• BULAW2611 Organisation Law Assignment Help