Big Bad Caravans Involvement in Forged Advertisement Free Sample

Question: You are Required to Identify Legal Issues, Relevant legal Authority and Describe how you Intend to use this Legal Authority in relation to the Research Hypothetical Questions. Answer: Issue George and Mildred, a married retired couple, had been planning to travel in and around Australia in a huge caravan. They had saved a huge amount to do so as they wanted to travel after they retire from their respective jobs. They made their respective research on the internet regarding the caravan, in order to get the best possible result, as their own caravan. After conducting all their respective researches, the couple approached Frank Snood, who works for Big Bad Caravans, as the sales executive. After making all the research and other respective aspects, the couple decided that they need a 20feet long caravan, with all the modern day perks, such as TV, toilet, shower and a pop out BBQ. After respecting all their requirements, Frank recommended them to buy "victory 2000" which met all their requirements and was within their respective Pallas weight. Frank had told them that the total payload was 300kg as stated by the manufacturer of the caravan. It was mentioned that the total extra weight, which they can carry is as per this weight scale. Other than this, there was an advertisement which stated that the caravan is available at a discount of $20,000. This tempted the couple and they bought the caravan as soon as they saw the advertisement. Not only this, they had even bought an extended warranty for an amount of $1,000, which stated that all the major repairs and other aspects of the caravan will be maintained by the company for the next 5 years. A contract was signed between both the parties and the couple did not read the contract as they thought all the information was provided by Frank. But this was not the case. Later they get to know that the payload weight of the company includes all the availabilities in the caravan already. And they were just left with 5kgs for their clothes. After about 11 months of the caravan, or precisely, after travelling for 11 months, the tires had blown and the vehicle was about to crash severely. The insurance company had refused to pass the claim as it was significantly due to excess payload. And when the couple approached the company to avail the feature of extended warranty, they were told that damage caused by mishandling or improper use is not covered. Not only this, they even realized that the company had just forged the actual rate of $100,000, to show the discounted prices of $80,000, to attract the customers.(Monash University, 2015) Rule The Contract Act, 1984, section 23 states for a fact that any person or persons, who states an information to another person or persons, to ambiguously effect its own interest, or leads to situation of letting a person buy or do things after giving any misinformation is considered to be against the law and breach of contract.(Government, 2015) Section 27A also states for a fact that, if most of the information as known by any of the party is not disclosed to the concerned parties or misrepresented in the form, where their own interest is being satisfied should be considered as an illegal aspect for the government to take strict action against the party. (ACU, 2012) Section 69 of the Contract Act, also states for a fact that the parties involved in these aspects should be notifying clearly about the life insured of the person or any commodity. These are the three most important sections of the Contract Act, which are applied in this case of the couple, George and Mildred and the Frank and the Big Bad Caravan[1]. (Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, 2016) Application In the current scenario, George and Mildred can file a suit against Frank and the Big Bad Caravans as they have misled him with the product big time. Not only this, they showed them a fake price of the product and a forged discounted rate. This is one of the major reasons for the company to be in the court under the section 27A. As per the court of law, section 69 also states for a fact that any sort of misreprestantion will not be spared. For example, in the current scenario, the warranty for which the couple has paid $1,000 was not entertained effectively. Not only this were they not even informed regarding the fact that many of the claims regarding the tyre bursting aspect is not being acknowledged only. For this reason, the company can then be taken to the court leading them to have a beneficial aspect as it will help the couple in attaining some amount of the claim.(ACL, 2012) Other than this they can even take the whole scenario to the court under the above mentioned sections as it would ultimately lead them to make sure that they get the claim for the amount of money that they are suppose to get. And also for the forged advertisement and aspects which are being adopted by the company to succumb the customers and the normal people.(Miller, 2014) Conclusion In order to conclude, it should be said that in the current case, Big Bad Caravans will be convicted by the court as they are being involved in forged advertisement, of their respective products. This will ultimately get the whole case in front of the court and Frank would be convicted then. It is, according to this scenario, George and Mildred will be able to have their claim from the company and the insurance people too. Their total amount of insurance is being avoided as well, because of which, it is very much necessary for them to make sure that the whole scenario is exposed under the law. The advertisement, which showed the discounted price of the product, is one of the reasons for the company to be under the radar, and George, being the plaintiff, should bring this under the court of law. According to the sections of the Contract Act, Frank and Big Bad Company would be convicted under the law and appropriate action would be conducted by the court. (J, 2012) (Australian Governme nt, 2016) Bibliography ACL. (2012). Overview of Australian contract law. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from www.australiancontractlaw.com: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law.html ACU. (2012). Contract Law. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from libguides.acu.edu.au: https://libguides.acu.edu.au/c.php?g=234001p=1553409 Australian Government. (2016). Insurance Contracts Act 1984. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from www.legislation.gov.au: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00820 Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. (2016). INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from www.austlii.edu.au: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ica1984220/ Government. (2015). Australian Contract and Consumer Law. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/ J, C. (2012). Contract Law in Australia, 6th Edition (Paperback). Retrieved March 28, 2017, from store.lexisnexis.com.au: https://store.lexisnexis.com.au/product?product=contract-law-in-australia-6th-edition-paperbackmeta_F_and=9780409330199 Miller, J. (2014). Doing Business in Australia: Contract law. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from www.claytonutz.com: https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2014/june/doing-business-in-australia-contract-law Monash University. (2015). Commercial law: Contract law. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from guides.lib.monash.edu: https://guides.lib.monash.edu/commercial-law/contract-law Similar case has happened in the Masters Vs Cameron 91 CLR353