Mick wanted to buy new carpet, so he went to Parisi’s Beaut Carpets and spoke to the salesman, Con. Mick explained that he required an orange, pure wool carpet that was durable because it was for his childrens' playroom. Con showed Mick a number of different carpets, and recommended the Tuffmaster which was priced $300 per metre. Mick didn't want to spend that much, so he decided to order 4 metres of Velcro-Scuff made by Floors Galore Pty. Ltd., and priced at $50 per metre including installation. The installation was to be done by the manufacturers. Con warned Mick that the carpet may not fulfill his needs, and that it was not covered by any guarantee, either expressed or implied by statute. Mick decided to go ahead and buy it anyway.

While the carpet was being laid by the manufacturers, Mick noticed that it had a large leafy pattern on it, he had not noticed it when he was looking at the piece in the shop. The men installing the carpet were also having a bit of trouble with fitting the carpet to the room size. They ended up having to stick a few pieces of off-cuts together to completely cover the floor.

Two weeks later Mick noticed that the carpet was lifting at the seams where the off-cuts had been added. It appeared that the glue was not strong enough. He also noticed that the colour was rubbing off onto anything that came in contact with it. His best white safari suit was now orange as a result of him sitting on the carpet.

Mick wants to know what rights he has under consumer law.

Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased goods and services which were not being used as a primary source of income.

Suppliers - Parisi’s Beaut Carpets

Manufacturers - Floors Galore

Breaches in supply of goods (against Parisi’s Beaut Carpets)

• Goods would not be deemed fit for purpose. However, the supplier can avoid the liability of fitness for purpose because Mick didn’t follow "reasonable advice". (Mick would be likely to argue that this carpet was not fit for any purpose, and that even thought that was the fault of the manufacturer, the supplier has an obligation to consumers to only stock merchandise which is of a reasonable standard.

• The goods did not comply with the sample which Mick agreed to purchase.

The price of the installation was included in the purchase price, but the manufacturers performed it, so breaches in this area can be attributed to either of the parties.

• Services not performed with care and skill.
• Materials used (glue) were not fit for the purpose for which they were intended

The services breach would only be deemed a breach of warranty, so if the carpet was suitable Mick could have it re-installed. The breach of supply by sample would be deemed a breach of condition therefore Mick can cancel the contract.

The supplier attempted to limit the plaintiff’s consumer rights by stating that there was no warranty applicable to the purchase. Mick can simply ignore this statement.

• Due to the problem with the carpet not being colourfast it would not be deemed merchantable quality. The manufacturer would not be able to avoid liability for this defect, as it was not drawn to Mick’s attention, nor would it have been obvious at the time of purchase. It is also a completely unreasonable defect in this type of product.

• The carpet would also not be deemed fit for purpose due to the abovementioned defect.

Refer to this heading above *

No breaches made by manufacturer

Having this carpet repaired seems impossible, and Mick would be very unlikely to accept the offer of having it replaced with more of the same rubbish, therefore he would succeed in having this deemed a breach of condition. This would give him the right to a refund and damages (for his ruined suit).

Raspal wanted to buy some chocolates for her guests that were coming to dinner that evening. She saw an advertisement for a new range of milk chocolates at Fatt and Happie's Chocolate Shop. The advertisement claimed that the chocolates are "fully imported from Belgium, and made from the purest of milk from contented, free-range cows that graze on the sweet pastures of the highlands....the only chocolates good enough for Princess Diana to eat (and keep down)". The salesman also states that "the soft centres of the chocolates are the smoothest in the world."

Raspal bought the chocolates, which were extremely expensive, and gave them to her guests after dinner. They were found to be extremely unsatisfactory, neither smooth nor creamy. She took the chocolates to her friend Dr. Flake who is a leading scientist in the field of chocolate technology, who analysed the chocolate, and reported that the chocolate had been made locally at Werribee, from recycled chocolate products, and had never been eaten by any member of the Royal Family apart from Prince Edward.

Please advise Raspal as to any breaches of consumer law that may have occurred.

Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased goods which were not being used as a primary source of income.

Defendant is the supplier Fatt and Happie’s Chocolate Shop.

Possibly not of merchantable quality, but this would depend on the price paid.

No services provided.

• The statement that the soft centres are the smoothest in the world would merely be deemed puffery, but they should still be reasonably smooth.
• Made a false representation concerning the place of origin of goods.
• Made a false representation concerning the composition of the goods.
• Made a false representation concerning sponsorship or approval of the goods.

As Raspal relied on the advertisement and the salesperson’s advice when making this purchase, she would be entitled to a full refund.

Brett was shown a demonstration model of a refrigerator by Ben, an employee of 'Fridge City'. He asked Ben whether the fridge was durable and reliable as he had a large family and bought meat in very large quantities so that he could freeze it. Ben advised him that the fridge was probably suitable but it was a new model into the store so he was unsure of its quality, it was extremely cheap compared to other similar refrigerators.

Brett decided to contact the manufacturer of the refrigerator, but discovered the fridge is manufactured overseas and imported by a Victorian company Frost Free Fridge Ltd. He is advised by them that the fridge is suitable for the intended purpose. They sent him the promotional material which applied to the fridge, which read "This refrigerator is of a remarkable new design, has been tested and awarded the Prince Charles Design for Excellence.

Two days later Brett returned to Fridge City and purchased the fridge and arranged for them to deliver and install it for him. After the delivery men leave, Brett noticed that the fridge vibrated when connected, and has two scratches down the side where it was damaged through delivery.

He returned to Fridge City and demanded a refund but was refused and told to refer to printing on the back of the sales receipt which read "any conditions implied by any consumer legislation are hereby excluded".

Brett conducted further investigations and found that the fridge had been on the market for several years and had never been tested as to its quality.

Brett seeks your advice as to whether he has any rights.

Brett is a consumer as he has purchased goods and services which will not be used as a primary source of income

• Fridge City - supplier of goods and services
• Frost Free Fridge Ltd. who are the manufacturers

Fridge City has not breached in this area

The delivery and installation were not performed with due care and skill.

The statements the salesperson made would not be deemed to breach the TPA. However, the sales receipt contained an illegal exclusion clause.

The scratches on the refrigerator would be deemed to breach warranty. Brett would be entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced. The exclusion clause can simply be ignored.

• The vibrations would suggest that there is a defect which would render the goods to be unmerchantable. The manufacturer cannot avoid liability as this is a defect which would not have been apparent when Brett made his purchase.
• It’s possible that the breach of supply by sample may apply if the refrigerator had been demonstrated to be running smoothly in the store.

None provided

Made misleading representation concerning approval (Prince Charles Design Award), and that the design was new, and that it had been tested.

The vibration would be deemed a breach of warranty therefore Brett is entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced. It’s unlikely that consequential damages would be awarded, because even though the refrigerator vibrated, there’s no indication that it wasn’t functioning.

Belinda and Kate own a carpet cleaning business. They are very eager to expand the business and make lots of money. They have come up with a number of ideas in order to increase their business, but are completely ignorant as to any possible consumer law implications and decide to ask you for advice regarding the following:

1. They plan to run an advertising campaign on television, offering free curtain cleaning to the first 50 customers that telephone their response to the advertisement. They then plan to tell these customers that they have only just missed out, and that they are the 53rd caller.
2. In order to save money on expensive carpet cleansing solvents, Belinda and Kate have developed their own recipe for a carpet cleaner based on mixing a number of commercial laundry detergents.
3. They claim their cleaning equipment is the same as that used by the Queen at Windsor Castle. In fact the Queen doesn't clean her own carpets, but the cleaning staff at Windsor Castle do use the same equipment as Belinda and Kate.
4. They plan to offer discounts, on completion of the job, to customers who give them the names and phone numbers of some of their friends.

i) This would be deemed bait advertising and having insufficient quantities of advertised services, as well as offering gifts or prizes without intending to supply.

ii) Providing the cleaning products are able to do the job, they would be deemed fit for purpose, therefore this would be OK.

iii) This would be deemed puffery, and therefore OK, as no reasonable person would expect HRH to get down and dirty on the floor.

iv) This is called referral selling, and is OK providing it’s offered after the contract for work has been formed. It is NOT OK when used as an inducement to enter into a contract.