Case Summaries Contracts PDF

Preview

Summary

Important case summaries for Contracts B...

Description

Case Summaries ACCC v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (2014) 317 ALR 73 Facts:   

Coles sold bread products Coles advertised these products as “Baked Today, Sold Today”, “Freshly Baked”, “Baked Fresh” and “Freshly Baked In-Store” In actual fact, the bread products had been partially baked off-site, snap frozen and then baked to completion at a Coles Supermarket.

Ratio:  

 

Coles had an in-store bakery and therefore it was assumed by customers that the bread was baked fresh. The way these products were advertised represented to customers that the products contained in the packaging were entirely baked on the day on which they were offered for sale, when in actual fact only some of the products were freshly baked. It was held that Coles engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive [26] “(the) misrepresentations deprived consumers of the opportunity to make properly informed purchasing decisions and that consumers were more likely to have”

ACCC v RL Adams Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1016 Facts:  



Darling Downs Fresh Eggs is a Queensland egg supplier and sold eggs labelled as “free range” to consumers in QLD, the NT and NSW. Darling Downs Fresh Eggs represented that its egg supplies were free range under its own “Mountain Range” label and also under the “Drakes Home Brand Free Range” label. Darling Downs Fresh Eggs also supplied eggs it represented were free range to other producers who used them to supplement their own free range egg supply.

Ratio: 





Darling Downs Fresh Eggs supplied eggs marketed and labelled as “free range” when in fact the laying hens had been continuously confined to barns and had never had access to the outdoors. ACCC Chairman Rob Sims noted that people are willing to pay a premium price for free range eggs as they conform to welfare and ethical standards. Businesses should not be profiting from making misleading claims about farming practices. Darling Down Fresh Eggs were found to have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive pursuant to s29 of the ACL

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC Facts: 

 

Reckitt Benckiser made representations on its website and product that Nurofen Specific Pain products were each formulated to specifically treat a particular type of pain, when this was not the case. The product was no more effective at treating the type of pain described on its packaging than any of the other Nurofen Specific Pain products. The Federal Court found the products were misleading because they all contained the same active ingredient and did the same thing.

Ratio:  

Reckitt Benckiser was found to have contravened s33 of the ACL [150] Must protect the strong public interest of consumers being able to make decisions about buying non-prescription medicines free from representations that are liable to mislead and thereby distort their decision-making processes.”

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v P&N Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 6 Facts:  



P&N published advertising materials concerning solar panels. The advert included the words “Australian solar panel/s” and/or a logo which prominently included the words “Australian Solar Panel” and an image of a map of Australia formed by rays of sunshine. The solar panels were made in China

Ratio:  

P&N were found to have contravened s29 of the ACL The ACL sets out detailed requirements which must be met for country of origin claims to be made. These requirements cover “Made in…”, “Produce of…” and “Grown in…” claims and businesses seeking to make place of origin claims must comply with those requirements.

ACCC v HJ Heinz Company Australia [2018] FCA 360 Facts:    

Heinz sold a product aimed at toddlers and young children called Heinz Little Kids Shrez which claimed to be beneficial to their health. The Shredz range comprised products containing fruit pastes, purees and concentrate. The ACCC's initial complaint referred to three items in the Shredz range — an apple product, a peach product, and a fruit and chia product The product packaging featured images of fruit and vegetables and stated "99 percent fruit and veg" when the products contain around 60 per cent sugar.

Ratio   

The representation on the boxes falsely implied that the products were beneficial to toddlers. Conduct was held to be misleading and deceptive [314] “Heinz ought to have known that it was making the healthy food representation in relation to each product and that that representation was false or misleading”

Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) Facts:      

Puxu manufactured and sold furniture Parkdale and Puxu both manufactured chairs that resembled each other Parkdale and Puxu labelled their chairs with a 3.5cm brand and chair name. They were called “Rawhide” and “Contour” respectively. Both chairs physically resembled each other Parkdale claimed that Puxu’s chairs were misleading and deceptive as to their appearance and quality It was held that it is not misleading or deceptive conduct to merely manufacture and sell a lounge suite that is similar to a competitor, as long as there is sufficient representation owing to the actual manufacturer of the chair.

Ratio: 





Puxu did not mislead or deceive even though the goods closely resembled those of Parkdale, as the goods were properly labeled and an ordinary person who read the labels on the furniture could not possibly be deceived or misled Lockhart J concluded that “Conduct does not contravene the ACL merely because members of the public would be caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that two products come from the same source.” “The conduct was not misleading or deceptive because there was no evidence of false labelling or false description”

Global Sportsman Pty. Ltd. & Anor. v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd. & Anor. (1984) Facts: 



The first and second applicants entered into an agreement under which, in return for payments from the first applicant, the second applicant agreed to perform various activities associated with the exploitation of his sporting reputation, such as writing articles about the second applicant. Neither respondent had any knowledge of the existence of the first applicant or of the agreement between the applicants at any material time.

 

The applicants alleged that each of the articles injured the second applicant in his credit, character and reputation. It was alleged that the article was not only defamatory of the second applicant but was misleading and deceptive within the meaning of sec. 52 of the Act. TACO

  

Taco Bell is an American fast food franchise that sells Mexican food. In 1977, in Sydney, there was a famous restaurant called Taco Bell. They sold Mexican food. Taco Bell North America wanted to set up in Australia, but Taco Corporation Australia wanted to stop it, arguing that “If Taco Bell North America comes to Australia, it will be misleading and deceptive towards our customers”....