Business Law Assignment Help
The case is presented in concentration with the allegations made for fixing the prices of petrol in the market of Geelong area. It was found that a series of arrangements were adjusted by the competitors in the market and every single provision was aimed giving effect to these kinds of arrangements. It was said that the retail price of petrol were fixed which were to be given into the effect from the year 1999 to 2000 which was against Trade Practice Act, 1974. Under the trail proceedings of the case it was found that allegations admitted were partial in the matter of natural person respondents. For the concerned matter circumstantial matter was admitted by ACCC by availing the evidence collected with the help of telephonic records for the price of ULP. To establish the case there were certain other evidences that were collected and presented.
According to Section 45(2) (A) of Trade Practice Act, Term of contract, arrangements and understanding are some of the factors that are used so as to deal with the factors that have taken place. According to the law it is suggested to the corporations not to enter into such kind of arrangements in which the understanding could be reached in respect with the price determination of the commodity in a market (Derham, 2015). It is necessary that both the parties should agree with the arrangements. Until and unless another party do not agree to enter into the arrangements the understanding could not said to be reached. According to Evidence Act under section 59(1) it is necessary that each and every procedure or arrangement should have the evidence of every aspect attached with it. On the other hand according to Section 57(2) of the act same things are not sufficient to address each and every question related to the case. If in the case the evidence provided could ensure that arrangement of participation of the third party is true then it would be considered under a law. According to Section 87 (1) (a) if the statement is made under the common purpose then the statement would be acceptable (Latimer, 2014).
Therefore the acceptance and admissibility of the case could be ensured if all the evidences presented are accordance with the case. There are certain set of public policy reasons required for such type of case. Size of the litigation and the cost of solicitors are two factors that involve full scale long trial in order to ensure the confirmation of admission made by the parties through their conducts. It is necessary that the parties should acknowledge the existence of all the arrangements so as to respect the court and the efforts made by it.
According to the Trade Practice Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act, 2009, Section 45A related with determining the price fixing was replaced with Cartel Conduct under Section 44 ZZRD, section amended have illustrated to be the Part IV i.e. Restrictive Trade Practices of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Fins, et. al., 2011). The judgement was made to cancel the case and court has stated that the alleged understanding provided was not found to be true with respect to the case. Although information regarding the telephonic conversation regarding price information was exchanged within the competitors at the Geelong Petrol market but the evidence were not found effective. According to Section 45(2) of TPs’ it is necessary that the understanding should include the commitment or an obligation which should bind both the parties to perform in a certain manner. It is necessary for the commitments to prove that the understanding has been reached. It was found by the court that no such arrangements were provided by ACCC on behalf of which it was concluded that the alleged arrangements by ACCC does not exists. ACCC have tried to attempt to link the price rise telephonic conversation between the retailers for 63 times (Kaal, et. al., 2012). The allegations presented by ACCC could not be related with the telephonic conversation and could not be termed as effective or true evidence for the case. According to Judge the evidences that were provided were just for the support for the allegation and could not be termed at allegations itself. According to the reported presented by ACCC it was discussed that it could be possible due to the saw tooth nature of price of petrol in the market. It was found that this type of the element is a nature of petrol as the price of petroleum keeps on fluctuating; therefore on the basis of this do not directly imply the understanding or arrangements between the retailers. It was found that the fluctuations in the price could be taken place without making any kind of conversation and it would have taken place more vigorously in the market (Davison, et. al., 2015). Court has argued that the prices of the homogeneous product in the market could move to the uniformity across the market and in the case of petrol price they are moved to uniformity so as to reduce the loss of customers. The findings were developed by the court that the scenario and the evidences present might look influential but cannot be termed completely responsible for the price fluctuation but could not be termed as the arrangements. Presenting the telephonic conversation of retailers could not be termed as evidence for the court as court could not present a final decision on such evidences as such kind of evidences could be termed as the only reason for increase in the price of petrol. After the investigation was completed it was found that the conversation between the retailers in relation with price fluctuations were continued to have on behalf of which it could considered that the conversation were held for the genuine reason (Round, et. al., 2010).
CASE 2: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION V ALLERGY PATHWAY PTY LTD. (NO 2)  FCA 74
ACCC has initiated proceedings against Advanced Allergy Elimination Pty. Ltd. in 2009 for the clinical operations which process the diagnosis and treatment for allergies while using the muscle strength indicator technique. ACCC alleged that the director of Advanced Allergy Elimination Pty. Ltd. was participating in the deception and the misleading conducts for treating the patients of allergy. It was found that the technique it was using for treating the allergy patients was not authenticated. The information was shared through various sources like Facebook, Twitter, radio, newspaper and with the help of brochures. Orders were passed from the Federal Court for Allergy Pathway and director that they will have to pay the fine and will have to conduct the corrective trainings for the compliance and advertising. Court also accepted that Allergy Pathway and Director should not publish that they are capable of treating or providing a cure to the allergy patients using that technique. The previous publishes made by the directors were under the breach that the links and the statements were posted on the wall of Facebook and Twitter for which the customer have the asked the query and director provides the solution to the query related with allergy. Allegations made were rejected by the court as the allegations were made by the third party on the basis of the involvement of Allergy Pathway towards misleading and deceptive statement which was posted by third parties on the internet.Breaches
An action was bought by ACCC for Allergy Pathway for the contravention of section 52, 53(AA), 53 (C) AND 55A of Trade Practice Act 1974. The case was helps that Allergy Pathway was misleading and misrepresenting its goods and services is likely to misleading the public into developing a trust with the goods and services provided by Allergy Pathways (Gauja, 2014). An allegation was also made on director of the company and was termed to found in the contravention of Section 75B of Trade Practice Act. ACCC have presented the report which was made by Professor Douglas in the support of the matter. It was found that undertakings made by Allergy Pathways were breached for 35 different occasions. Therefore an understanding could be developed that every single respondents is involved in the contempt of the court. The court has accused for making the false statements that were untrue and were deceptive. The statement was bringing into the existence that AAE could test and identify that which type of allergy a person is having. It was stated that AAE could cure the allergies and the reactions so as to treat the person’s allergies (Round, et. al., 2010).
AAE treatment was safe and procedure provided in the treatment was not risky, these were some kind of the statements made in the advertisements. It was investigated that the directors were involved directly or indirectly in providing such kind of the statements through the conduct and the undertaking were presented in the court which mentioned the refraining from doing the same for at least 3 times. AAE was said to agreed so as to publish the corrective notice for the information that it had made and implementing the trade practice compliance program (Fins, et. al., 2011).Decision of the Court
According to the court Allergy pathway had conceded statements 1, 2 and 4 for breaching the undertakings. However statement made for category three was not bit controversial as the customer nor have the company made the posts. Approach was made for the statement three by the court to have a check that how Facebook and Twitter operates the advertisements in relation with whether Allergy Pathway have and effective set of technologies to treat the patients or not. It was investigated that the Allergy Pathways had actually taken the acceptance with the testimonial posted by the user and continued to publish since it came into the existence (Latimer, 2014). The same fact was stated by the judge that Allergy Pathway had caused for the statement that is to be posted on the social media websites and it continued to publish the same till the time it came into existence. Reason behind not removing the post from various social networking sites was that the company wanted to be praised and want that it could attract more customers with the help of this post and could be benefited in an effective manner. A fine was charged on Allergy Pathways and it was fined with $7,500 for the breach that it has done.
ACCC was found to be succeeding in gathering the court orders and the decisions made by the court were regarded as the landmark for the case. It was stated that someone should take corrective actions and should place the notice on social networking sites and YouTube, which should provide a direction that these kind of the activities are misleading and misguiding the people present in the market or are using social networking sites (Fins, et. al., 2011). With the help of the decision an assurance was made that corrective actions should be taken in consideration with such kind of posts which are posted by the third parties on social networking sites to mislead and misguide the people and to aware the people in relation with such type of fraudulent activities. Another risk that should be undertaken in relation with such kind of cases is posting the offensive material so as to damage the reputation of the company. These type of activities are done by the competitors present in the market so that they could succeed in damaging the reputation of the companies in the market. There are certain set of factors that should be taken under consideration while determining the liability are personal circumstances of the customer which will include his financial condition, the nature of the circumstances held, effect of the contempt on the laws and justice administration (Davison, et. al., 2015). Understanding all the scenarios and aspects related with the case penalties deemed was of $10,000 with the amount being of upper limit. Hence the amount that was charged for the penalty was $7500 which should be paid by the party within the 90 days of the orders issued.