‘Compliance with the law is necessary to achieve justice for all.’<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
Evaluate this statement in relation to issues of compliance and non-compliance<o></o>
for consumers.
what is complience and non-compliance?
This question is basically asking you to discuss laws that have been put into effect to regulate consumer markets and whether or not these have been adhered to by manufacturers/suppliers. You could talk about self regulation vs state regulation, product liability laws etc.
Compliance: The development of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was a major piece of federal legislation governing the sale and purchase of goods in Australia. It is designed to protect consumers from companies that operate in an unethical manner, through providing protection against misleading or deceptive conduct and violations of the implied terms of a contract, while introducing the notion of “product liability”. This concept reflects the view that people, namely manufacturers, should be responsible for damage or injury that may result from consumers using or consuming their goods and services. This can be seen as an extension of the judgement made in Donohuge v Stevenson (UK), whereby Australian manufacturers are now obligated to exercise a duty of care to consumers in order to comply with statute law and create a level, just playing field between corporations and individuals.
Non-compliance: The Contract Review Act 1980 (NSW) granted the court power to declare a contract void in the instance that one party was kept unaware of the contractual terms. This meant that suppliers, such as retailers or lenders, were bound to provide full disclosure of the terms of its contract with a consumer or borrower. A practical application of this law can be seen in the case of CBA v Amadio 1983, whereby the CBA was found to have not complied with the relevant legislation. The Amadios spoke little English, were unaware of the consequences of signing the contract and were not given an opportunity to seek independent legal advice. The court found that the CBA was guilty of unconscionable conduct, therefore demonstrating non-compliance with the law that led to an injustice for the Amadios.
