Business Law and Corporation Law of India †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Differences between Business Law Corporation laws? Answer: Introducation From the given scenario, Adil bought a Mitsubishi Pajero car from a car dealer named Tang at price of $44,990. But after one week, the car broke down due to defective gear box and has also travelled more than 7000Km which was not earlier mention by the car dealer. The issue in this case is that when Adil went to Tang for refunding his money but he refused to pay the refunded money under the consumer law of Australia as cost of car is more than $40,000 which deprived Adil not be an Australian customer. The main concern is to find the legal rights of Adil to recover his money from Tang under the consumer Business Law of Australia. Rules: The above case comes under the consumer law of Australia, 2001. Under the section 3 of this law, if the prices for goods are exceeded above $40,000, then person will not be treated as the consumer. The person will only be considered as the consumer in case exceeded the limit above $40,000, if purchased goods will be used for personal, household or domestic purposes (Fitzpatrick et al, 2016). The above case also comes under section 54 of ACL, 2011 where guarantee is given on the acceptable quality of goods or services. The guarantee as to be fitted for any unspecified or disclosed purpose is also comes under the section 55 of ACL, 2011. Further, under section 64A of ACL, 2011, the goods are liable to be replaced, repaired or refund of money in case the goods or services are found in lack of quality or information. The deceptive or misleading conduct also comes in action under the section 3 of consumer law, 2011, which can be applied to all the persons who are considered as the consumers and in some cases, also applied to those who are not the consumers under the law (Baxt, 2016). Under the section 18 of ACL, 2011, a person has no right to do the trade or business if he engaged in deceptive or misleading actions or likely to be involved in this type of actions. This section mainly meant for the corporations or individuals and does not consider the consumers under the law. The above case also comes under the unconscionable conduct under the section 20 of ACL, 2011, which prohibits the individual or person to be engaged in this type of conduct which is usually according to the law that is unwritten by nature. This type of conduct generally referred where stronger parties always takes benefits of the weaker party due to their weakness or special disability as happened in the scenario where Adil has little knowledge of English language and Tang took the advantage of that disability (Murray and Harris, 2011). This type of conduct is also prohibited the delivery or supply of goods and services to the consumers for their domestic, household and personal use under the section 21 of consumer law of Australia, 2011. The above act done by Tang also comes under the unfair practices under the section 29 of consume law of Australia, 2011 which defines that a person or individual will not remain in trade or business to deliver or supply goods and services which falsely represents the quality, grade or standard related to the supplied goods and services (Latimer, 2016). Further, the above scenario also comes under the information standards according to which if the goods or services are not complied with the set information standards then such types of goods or services needs not be supplied to the consumers under the section 134-5 of consumer law of Australia, 2011. These are the rules which mainly satisfies all the issues which are raised in the following given scenario. Application: There are various applications which can easily determines the fact whether Adil comes under the rights of consumer law of Australia or not. The case between Bethune and QconnPty Ltd in 2002 also comes under the same scenario where inappropriate services were given to the consumer. In this case, Bethune had purchased bob cat for price of $10,000 from QconnPty Ltd. But there was a defect in bob cat as had not the protective mesh. Due to that, customer was charged less amount and also well acknowledged about the defect (Harris et al, 2011). After some time, Bethune was injured while driving and argued that bob cat was not of quality which could be acceptable. The court had declined his argument as Bethune was well aware about the defect while purchasing the bob cat. Under section 54(7), if buyer is well aware about the defect before purchasing the goods or services, he is not liable to claim about the acceptable quality of goods and services. This case also comes under the deceptive or misleading. The case between Trade Practices Commission and Thompson Pty Ltd or Anand also defines misleading conduct as telling something which is new but actually not. The silence also comes under misleading conduct especially where if something required to be said when it is known. The case between Henjo Investments and Collins Marrickville Ltd in 1987 also defines misleading conduct. HI made written contract to sale restaurant (Harris, 2012). It was displayed that restaurant had seating capacity of 120. CM visited to buy the restaurant but licensed for only 80 seats was made by HI. The solicitor of CM had found that under misleading conduct as represent false information regarding seating capacity and has breached contract under section 52. CM was granted the remedy and also contract was terminated under the section 242 of consumer law of Australia, 2011. Conclusion: From the above discussion, it has been found that Adil has the legal rights to claim for his money from Tang under the consumer law of Australia, 2011. Adil is liable to claim remedy from Tang according to the statutory guarantees under the consumer law of Australia, 2011. The remedy can be in the form of damages, non-punitive orders or injunctions. If the breach happened under the statutory guarantee, then the consumer is liable to take serious measures against the offended person or suppliers of goods under section 259 and services under section 267 of consumer law of Australia, 2011. Both sections 259 and 267 mainly differentiate the major as well as minor breaches under the statutory guarantees. Further, if the failure to provide quality or standards services and goods happened, then the consumer is liable to reject supply of goods or services and can also claim for the compensation charges according to the loss happened to him under the section 259(3) of the consumer law of Australia, 2011. Also, if the consumer is decided to terminate the contract then he is liable to recover all his considerations that are required to be paid under the section 269 of consumer law of Australia, 2011. Adil can also be treated as the Australian consumer even if he has bought the goods above the price of $40,000 under the section 3 of the consumer law of Australia, 2011. According to this law, even if the consumer has exceeded $40,000 for the purchased goods, he comes under the Australian law as the consumer is using his purchased goods for his for personal, household or domestic purposes. References: Baxt, R. (2016). Corporations Legislation 2016. Australia: Thomson Reuters. Fitzpatrick, J., Symes, C., Veljanovski, A. and Parker, D. (2016). Business and Corporations Law, 3rd Edition. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Harris, J. (2012). Company Law: Theories, Principles and Applications. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Harris, J., Hargovan, A. and Adams, M. (2011). Australian Corporate Law. Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. Latimer, P. (2016). Australian Business Law 2016. Australia: Oxford University Press. Murray, M. and Harris, J. (2011). Keay's Insolvency: Personal and Corporate Law and Practice. Australia: Lawbook Company.