Introduction to Business Law (BUS101) TRIMESTER 2 2018 GROUP ASSIGNMENT – CASE STUDY General instruc 1 Students are required to read a decision of the High Court of Australia and then write a report...

1 answer below »

Introduction to Business Law (BUS101) TRIMESTER 2 2018






GROUP ASSIGNMENT – CASE STUDY






General instruc




1 Students are required to read a decision of the High Court of Australia and then write a report on the “ratio” for that decision in response to specific questions




2 Each group is to submit a
joint
report for marking. The length is to be no more than 1200 words










THE CASE


The case for study is

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

[APPELLANT]

v TPG INTERNET PTY LTD

[RESPONDENT] (decided in December 2013)


· A copy of the High Court’s judgment is loaded separately.


· The first step is for students to read the judgment carefully.


· The questions for response will be placed on Moodle in week 9.



Extra guidance for students


To avoid any confusion among some students who are reading the High Court judgment about the roles played by the various courts which heard this dispute I provide the following short summary



The sequence of court hearings


· The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against internet provider TPG because of an advertising campaign TPG had been conducting for internet services.


· Initially, the proceedings were heard by a single judge, who is referred to in the High Court judgment as the “primary judge". ACCC was largely successful against TPG in those proceedings.


· TPG, having lost the case before the primary judge, appealed to three judges, referred to in the judgment as the “Full Court". That court largely disagreed with the conclusions of the primary judge and set aside his decision. In effect, TPG won its appeal to the Full Court.


· This left ACCC as the loser. It appealed to the High Court, which disagreed with the conclusions of the Full Court in favour of TPG and essentially reinstated the decision made by the primary charge in favour of ACCC.


The judgment you are reading, and to which the assignment questions relate, is the judgment of the High Court only. However, to enable the "ratio" of its decision to be understood, the High Court includes in its judgment summaries of the reasons which the primary judge and the Full Court gave in coming to their respective (and contradictory) decisions.



The questions in this assignment


The questions you will be required to answer are designed to enable you to express
your own understanding
of what the three courts separately determined. However,
this is
not a cut and paste exercise.

It is
not possible to answer the questions simply by locating the relevant paragraphs in the judgment and copying them into your answer. Doing so will result in a high similarity index in Turnitin and a low mark for the group. One group in a previous trimester resorted to the cut and paste technique and was awarded 2/20; as a result, all but one member of the group failed BUS101.



You
must
express your answer in
your own words

and to enable the tutors marking the assignments to be sure that you have done this you should state, in brackets at the end of your answers to each question, the paragraph numbers from the judgment you have referred to in preparing your answer.


I encourage you to express answers in either numbered or bullet point form rather than long paragraphs.






John Lanser


August 2018

Answered Same DaySep 14, 2020BUS101

Answer To: Introduction to Business Law (BUS101) TRIMESTER 2 2018 GROUP ASSIGNMENT – CASE STUDY General instruc...

Shanaaya answered on Sep 16 2020
132 Votes
ACCC v TPG
ACCC v TPG
Student Name
Student Name
Student ID
University Name
Question 1
1 ) In the case, the TPG  Internet Pty had posted an advertisement which was considered unethical and misleading. TPG company who provides internet & telephone line h
ad advertised heavily in the market, claiming that they would be providing a broadband connection ADSL2 along with it, providing basic services at an offered cost of $29.99 per month. This was an attractive bid for the customers and for the company who was competing in a lowest minimal fare. Due to the misleading content, ACCC took action against TGP.
2) Further to this, the company TGP misleading advertisement apart from charging a flat fare of $ 29.99 didn’t disclose the additional cost to the customer of $30 per month to be paid for the phone line rental along with the installation charges. This was included apart from the set-up fees that were not mentioned on the cost fares and it was kept hidden from the customers. After the customers have taken the plan and proceeded with the installation all the hidden costs were disclosed to customers and were charged with a hefty amount of  $149.95 per month. It was considered as a bundled effect as the costs include the setup charges along with the inclusion of the telephone setup charges.
3) The cost to include the landline only added an additional cost to be borne by the customers as the internet was supported with a mandatory usage of landline as it was a broadband connection. This resulted in more cost for consumers and as per law, it resulted in a breached section under 53C (1) due to nondisclosure of the total paid services to the customers.
Question 2
It was considered that the advertisement marketed by the company TPG Internet had violated certain terms and provisions under the act of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Roberts, 2016). The company highly spread its dominant message of providing internet and broadband services of $ 29.99 but didn’t disclose the hidden costs which the customers have to bear every month. When the customers have availed the broadband connection, they were disclosed of the amount to be paid per month of $ 149.9  as they have reached a contract with the company.
 
    Statutory provision
    Breach
    Section 52
    The company TPG Internet advertisement was considered misleading due to the hidden costs incurred to the customers.  Under this law, the section discourages or prohibits any action that is deceptive in nature to be considered under this activities.
     Section 53c (1)
    The company TPG unless the customers have...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here