Business Law Sales and Consumer Law

Question: Discuss about the Business Law for Sales and Consumer Law. Answer: Introduction: This essay analyzes the case related to trade practice, sales and consumer law. Furthermore, it assesses the case given and finds the issues in case. It analyzes the case from the perspective of respective law and acts. Based on the analyzed result and rules of the respective laws and acts, it suggests some rights that the aggrieved party may use against other party. Analysis of Case and Rules under Law: This is the case of breach of duty or condition of contract that leads the contract to be revoked or canceled based on the choice of a grieved party. There was contract between Harry and Milo where Harry had to provide the flour with specific ingredients to Milo in returns of consideration. But after some time, when the supplier of Harry raided and the business of Milo started to falling then Milo found that Harry provides flour that does not includes ingredients, whatever specified in agreement. Therefore, it can be said that Milo has the legal right against Harry as Harry breached the duty or terms and condition of contract. The sales law states that the seller or supplier must perform his or her contractual duty and terms and condition. If the supplier or seller breach the duty then he or she will be liable to pay the penalty or indemnify the loss of buyer. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission controls over the activities of the seller and buyer in the country. This the legal body to regulate the trade practices under the Trade Practice Act, 1974[1]. This is the act protects interest of consumer while buying goods or services from the sellers. The main aim of Trade Practice Act is to ensure the fair buying and selling practices in Australia. Legal system of the country requires fair trade practices between seller and buyers. The goods must be of the ingredients determined in the contract or agreement and must not be defective. Under Trade Practice Act, 1974 both the parties in contract are obliged to do fair trade and provided with legal rights against the party tried to cheat or breach the contract condition. In the given case, there was a trade agreement between Milo and Harry. Milo is an owner of small shop of bakery and specialized in homemade scones and bread rolls. Harry concealed the information from its buyers of default product supplied by him to Milo for gaining increased profit. The flour was mixed with mice. Therefore, Milo has legal right to sue against Harry according to Trade Practice Act 1974[2], Contract law, Tort law, and others as well. After raid at warehouse of supplier of Harry, he started to purchase the flour from supermarket in large lot at lower price. The fraud by Harry affected the business of Milo and his reputation in the market. Along with this, Milo can claim on Harry to compensate the loss occurred due to unfair trade practice by Harry. Milo has the right and options whether he continues the contract or not. Harry was also not aware of the fact that Perth Supplier, from which he purchases flour, does mixing in flour. According to Sales of Goods Act, a buyer has the right against the seller in case of non delivery of goods and service, price discrimination, failed in performing specific performance, breach of terms and conditions of contract, and breach of warrantee[3]. According to Sales Goods Act, 1923, warranty is an agreement referred to goods or service in the contract of sales. But the breach of contract gives right to the party aggrieved duty to breach of warranty, to claim for compensating the damages, but not to repudiate the contract. Under the section of 54 in Sales of Goods Act, 1923, it is mentioned that buyer does not have any right to reject the goods but may sue against seller to get its damages compensated by the seller[4]. If the breach of warranty is related to quality of goods then it is prima facie. According to Australian Consumer Law, the consumers must be provided with fact information about the products and services. The seller must provide the fact information about the ingredients to customers. If the seller sells the product of different ingredient told to customers then the seller breach the implied terms of contract[5]. Similarly, the Perth Supplier did unfair trade practices to take unfair advantage. The flour supplied by Perth Supplier tarnished the reputation of Harry and caused the business to fall down. Generally it happens that the parities to be involved in the contract determine the terms and condition of the contract and that they have to follow and perform during the period of contract. The law may only cause the terms and condition to be implied in the agreement or contract. There are various remedies are there under the related laws such as sales goods act, trade practice act, consumer law, and others laws. The buyer has the remedies if the breach of contract takes place. The buyer may claim for compensating the loss he suffered, a court may order to the party breached the contract for putting the innocent party in the position where he or she was before entering in to the contract[6]. Therefore, it can be said that the law implies the terms in contract of sales and trade. According to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the goods and service must match to the description mentioned in the contract of sales or demanded by consumers[7]. Advices: So, it can be said that Milo has the right against Harry in the same manner as Harry has against Perth Supplier. Because Harry also did unfair trade practice and the flour provided by Harry to Milo was not matching to flour in terms of ingredients described in agreement. Milo has the right to reject the goods because the quality standards for flour and ingredients for four were already defined in the agreement. Apart from this, Milo can demand the compensation of damages he suffered. The compensation for damages will be supported by the consumer low and Sales of Goods Act, 1923. Furthermore, Milo has the right to repeal the contract with Harry as Harry did not perform his duty according to contract terms. However, according to consumer sales law, Milo may not revoke the contract with Harry but can set up the action and sue against Harry. Furthermore, there is an option available with Milo other than rejection of goods, revocation of contract, and claim for compensation. Milo can go into the business with Harry and can continue the contract by still buying the flour from Harry without revealing the information to anyone. Although, to support to Harry is not legal action however the contract can be continued with Harry with some provisions. The contract previously made with Harry can be revised in under the provision of section of 131, 132, and 133 of Corporation Act 2001. The revision of contract means alteration of the terms and contract and establish a new contract. The revisions of contract helps in keeping continue the legal binding between the parties. Here, Milo may decide to be continuing in contract with Harry by rectifying the contract or establishing a new contract with Harry to be involved in business with Harry. This will be the contract of partnership where they will share the profit from the business in determined percentage. Milo can engage in the business with Harry because Harry purchases flour from the supermarket at very low price that may help Milo in enjoying the price advantage and enjoying higher profitability. Along with this, Harry is supplier that is famous for the purity of flour so Milo will be able to take the advantage of name of Harry to improve the market share. Apart from this, it might help Milo in expanding its business with Harry. Conclusion: From the analysis, it can be said that the essay has effectively and successfully analyzed the case and provided advice on the rights of the buyers against sellers in case of breach of terms and condition. Here it is found that Harry breached the terms and condition of contract by supplying the flour made of ingredients different from the ingredients mentioned in contract with Milo. Apart from this, based on the analysis of different acts, it can be recommended that Milo can claim on Harry for damage compensation. Milo can revoke the contract with Harry and has legal right to sue against Harry for unfair trade practice. The essay further suggested that Milo can involve in the business with Harry by establishing new contract or revising the existing contract to take the price advantage. References: ACCC, Consumer rights and guarantee, (2017) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees ACL, The Australian Consumer Law, (2017) https://consumerlaw.gov.au/the-australian-consumer-law/ ACL, Trade Practice Act 1974, (2014) https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/legislation/1974tpa.html ACL, Trade Practice Act 1974, (2014) https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/legislation/1974tpa.html JEC, Remedies For Breach Of Contract, (2017) https://jec.unm.edu/education/online-training/contract-law-tutorial/remedies-for-breach-of-contract NSWG, Sales of Goods Act 1923 No 1, (2012) https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/1923/1/part8/sec64 OH, Breach of Contract, (2017) https://www.owenhodge.com.au/commercial-law-services/commercial-litigation-insurance/breach-of-contract/