In Australia, there are laws that govern how business entities and affairs are to be conducted. The majority of the rules controlling advertising and sale functions of the business to customers are contained in the Australian Consumer Law. It is recognized and applicable to business forms operating in Australia and within the Australian jurisdiction. At the same time, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is the regulator of the law. The legislation has comprehensively determined the relevant parties involved, their rights,, and the scope of the relationships between them. The law also protects these parties from certain infringements from consumers and other business people. Moreover, it not only governs the business entities but also related issues like business deals and transactions. This paper takes an insight into some of the common occurrences in business and matters concerning law and the proper treatments according to Australian business law.

Question 1

- Concerning the ACL discuss which consumer guarantees have been breached by Rosie’s.

- Issue: The sale of the wrong lily bulb to him.

Rules: In this case, it is clear, according to the Consumer Protection Regulation, that Bill was deceived through misleading and deceptive conduct. Rosie’s sold to him a sort of lily bulbs of less quality in a misguiding manner. He had placed an order for pink Tiger Lily bulbs, which he hoped to present in an upcoming national show. Just when flowers were almost bloomed he realized that it was the wrong sort, Formosa Lilies. Thus, there was a breach of the consumer guarantee, in which Bill falsely traded the wrong sort of flowers. This type of breach is subject to the action of law.

- Issue: The advice he received from their assistant about a suitable insect spray for his fairy orchids.

Rules: According to Australian law, consumers are given extra protection because they are considered to be underprivileged while being involved in business issues. A business entity ought to have more information about the product than the clients in order to avoid misleading and deceptive actions.

ACL outlaws misguiding or deceitful behavior for trade or commerce purposes. Consumers and business people in Australia are greatly dependent on this stipulation. A victim of loss that arises from misleading or deceptive behavior in business has legal grounds to pursue a remedy or several of them. Moreover, there is a test for misleading or deceptive conduct that determines if a case should be considered to have a misguiding or deceitful nature. 

Application

Bill is viewed to be a consumer since he purchased the repellant for domestic use. He can safely attribute the bad condition of his orchids to the Creepy Crawley purchased and recommended by a worker at Rosie’s. This was confirmed by the specialist, who testified that the repellant used was too strong for the gentle flower. Thus, the customer was misguided by the worker at Rosie’s, who suggested the repellant. Bill specifically sought advice on the proper brand that would be used on his orchid. A week later, the results were negative contrary to what he was expecting. Thus, he suffered a loss since his demand was not met the way he expected. Consequently, the advisement was misleading.

• Remedies available to Bill for breach of these provisions.

The court can order Rosie to pay a calculated amount of money to Bill as compensation. This would repay damage for the deterioration of his orchids and the loss he experienced.

• Under these circumstances discuss whether Rosie’s has breached any of the consumer guarantees under the ACL.

This would not be considered as breaching because the worker did not remain silent and wanted to know if Bill was aware of the effect. The effects would only be the result by Bill’s decision. Moreover, he would not have an advantage to bring legal action on Rosie, since the attendant clarified any possible effects. Therefore, it was up to Bill to make a decision, so he was not misguided. In this case, the conduct would not be seen as deceptive or misleading.

Conclusion

The first two cases indicate that Rosie’s conduct towards Bill was deceptive and misleading, which entitles him to claim legal remedies. The last case, however, was clearly caused by his decision.

Question 2

• Issue: Advise Tom on whether Harry was legally required to sell the Volkswagen to him.

Rules: a contract between two or more parties is usually governed by a set of rules and regulations that must be met for it to be valid by custom essay.

Application

Tom should proceed with the pursuit of court actions for Harry. On Friday evening, Tom received an invitation through an advertisement with an offer to purchase a car. ]He was interested in buying the vehicle and contacted the seller, Harry. The vehicle had a price tag on it, $7,000.Tom accepted the offer, but could not get the full amount. They both agreed that the car would remain unsold until Monday. It is assumed that business agreements have an intention to be legally relevant. The vehicle was sold on Saturday, and Tom was not informed. He came over on Monday only to find the car already being sold and Harry absent. Tom has legal grounds to sue the seller, considering that Tom had not ran out of time.

• What could Tom have done to ensure that Harry would keep his promise until Monday 5 pm?

Tom could have presented to Harry a consideration like a down payment to make sure the car remained unsold until Monday 5 pm.

Conclusion

This case shows a breach of contract. Tom has a legal right to start court proceedings on Harry.

Question 3

Issue: Are Handyman Twins correct in claiming that they have a binding agreement with Darcy for $1,300 with reference to the rules for offer and acceptance?

Rules: An offer is a definite and solid promise to be obligated upon acceptance. It is a frequent case in the business world when offers are made through advertisements. Acceptance is the final part of an agreement. It is the absolute consent to the terms of the offer. 

Application

In this case, the agreement between Handyman Twins and Darcy is not binding. There was no advertisement or any other form of offer that was provided to Darcy. Furthermore, he did not make a promise to be bound by any terms. Darcy presented a counteroffer, which meant that there was no proper agreement. Additionally, he failed to contact and inform the Handyman Twins that the offer had been revoked.

Conclusion

The agreement is barely binding and cannot attract legal consequences. Everything that has been mentioned above, is just several business-related cases and the ways they are dealt with. The law concerning business is dynamic to adjust to the various aspects of business.