Competition and Consumer Commission Liability †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Competition and Consumer Commission Liability. Answer: Introduction: The subject matter of the case is based on the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. The main rationale of the Act is to ensure fair trade process within the territory of Australia. Further, the ultimate aim of the Act is to secure the interest of the consumers at large. Certain code of conducts has been mentioned under the Act that should be followed up by the companies. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission are empowered to regulate the conduct of the traders. In the case of Jet Star Airlines Pty Ltd, it has been observed that the company has published certain advertisements regarding the fair price of the air tickets in their website and mobile site. Many consumers were attracted to the price list and bought tickets. After certain times, it has been observed that the real price of the tickets was too high compare to the price mentioned in the advertisement. According to ACCC, the company was engaged in drip pricing, which is against the policies of the Australian Con sumer Act and therefore, the commission sued the company. Further, it has been observed by the court that the company has failed to act in good faith. The poster regarding the price was false and misleading and the company had failed to disclose the entire extra surcharges imposed on the posted price. Accurate description: Considering the matters mentioned in given case study, it has been observed that the acts of the company has attracted the provision of section 18 of Australian Consumer Law (Dietrich 2015). According to this section, if a company imposes additional taxes on the consumers, the business will not fall under the provision of section 16 and section 17 of the Act. Further, the company was held liable for the drip pricing. The chairperson of ACCC explains the term drip pricing as follows: The conduct which was the subject of the ACCCs allegations in both of these proceedings is an example of what is often referred to as drip pricing. Drip pricing is where a headline price is advertised at the beginning of an online purchasing process and additional fees and charges (which may be unavoidable or applied in most transactions) are then incrementally disclosed (or dripped). This can result in consumers paying a higher price than the advertised price, spending more than they realize and making it more difficult to compare offers. Therefore, it can be said that the airplane company has deceived the customers by publishing wrong information regarding the price of the tickets. Courts decision: Learned presiding officer of the case has pronounced order against the Airlines Company and it has been observed by him that the Airlines Company has failed to perform their acts in accordance to Australian Consumer Law. The judgment made by the Court regarding this case can be divided into certain parts. The court was of the view that the statement made by the company in their website was false and the company did not publish all the price charts regarding the ticket fare for attracting the customer. The company had mentioned only a portion of the fare of the tickets and when the passengers were booked their tickets, they found a yawning gap in between the posted price and original price (Corones, Christensen and Howell 2016). Further, the company has made false representation in the mobile site of the company too. The court observed that the company has failed to perform his duties and the acts of the company have attracted the provisions of section 18 and section 29A of the Austra lian Consumer Act. However, according to both the section, no pecuniary penalties could be imposed on the breaching parties. However, an exception to the penalties has been made under section 224 of the Act. The court has interpreted the contents of section 224 of the Act and according to the section, if any party especially a body corporate contravenes the provision of section 29A, he will be held liable to pay the pecuniary damage sustained for the party (Hunt 2015). However, it has been observed in this case that the Airlines Company has accepted the penalties imposed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and asked to pay the penalties in proper way. Previous case study: While making judgment on the case, both the sides had mentioned certain case studies in their favor respectively. The most cited case law in this case was Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths limited [2016] FCA 44 and Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd (2005) ATPR 42-084. The Airlines company has contended that the false statement published by them are not serious in nature. However, the court had rejected the prayer based on the case study of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Consumer Commission (2003) 131 FCR 529. In the case of ACCC v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd [2005], an interpretation of section 224 has been made and it has been held that section 224(4) of the Consumer Law allows pecuniary penalties imposed upon the contravener. The court has held that the company is required to pay two damages to the consumers. However, it has been contended by the Airlines Company that both the false statements published in the website and mobile site are close to each other by their nature and therefore, the company should pay one damage and not two. The court has ordered that the velocity of the damages were too effective in this case and the consumers had to face lots of trouble due to the same. Therefore, the company has to pay double compensation according to the law. It has been mentioned that section 18 and section 29A of the Act do not impose pecuniary penalties on the parties. However, it has been mentioned in ACCC v Woolworths Limited [2016], where compensation is the only option for contravenin g parties, the parties will be liable under section 224 of the Act and have to pay the compensation to the victims. Further, according to the case law, the parties should have certain knowledge about the misconduct they are performing. Therefore, the court has taken a note of this case in this regard. Further, it has been mentioned in Universal Musics case that the risk generated from each posts are serious in nature and the common consumers had to face trouble due to the same. Considering the effectiveness of the case, no discount regarding the penalties should be allowed. Legal significance of the case: The case is significant in nature, as the effectiveness of the Consumer law has been established by this case. Further, the applicability of section 18, section 29A and section 224 of the Consumer act has been analyzed in this case. A clear interpretation of those sections has been made and it has been observed that no financial penalties can be imposed on the contravening parties under section 29A of the Act, but the same can be imposed under section 224 of the Act (Jones 2015). It has been argued by the alleged company that the misconducts committed by the company are similar in nature and therefore, they had prayed for a single penalty order. However, they had failed to prove the similarity of the offence and held liable for the same. It has been observed that the company has failed to act for the best interest of the consumers and they have engaged in drip pricing. This case has pioneered the future acts of the companies by establishing the ideology of Australian Consumer Law. Reference: Australian Competition Consumer Commission v Westminster Retail Pty Ltd (2005) ATPR 42-084 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths limited [2016] FCA 44 Corones, S.G., Christensen, S.A. and Howell, N., 2016. Submission to Australian Consumer Law Review Issues Paper. Dietrich, J.O.A.C.H.I.M., 2015. Liability arising from contract and under the australian consumer law. Hunt, K.M., 2015. Gaming the system: Fake online reviews v. consumer law.Computer Law Security Review,31(1), pp.3-25. Jones, M., 2015. Criminal procedure in Australia [Book Review].Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, (236), p.42. Reporter, N.L., 2014. IIb. Law Review, Legal Journal, and Legal Resource Articles and Documents. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Consumer Commission (2003) 131 FCR 529