On 10 March 2011 the ACCC accepted an undertaking under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010(Cth) from Patterson Cheney Pty Ltd in relation to alleged misrepresentations made by the Victorian car retailer. Outline in your own words the history of this matter (briefly) and discuss why the ACCC took action against Patterson Cheney and detail what particular section of the law the ACCC alleged Patterson Cheney breached (including the ACL equivalent provision).
1. Whether you agree that the ACCC should have taken action against Patterson Cheney and why (for example, whether the ACCC or rather a competitor of Patterson Cheney should have taken action, and what social good the ACCC was trying to achieve with this action); and
2. Whether in your opinion the way the matter was resolved (ie, by undertaking) is beneficial for the protection of Australian consumers and why (You should also refer to other cases to illustrate your argument here).
The question belongs to Consumer Protection law in Australia. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is a body that takes action against those companies which misguide consumers into buying products or services with false promises or warranties. This question is about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s action against Patterson Cheney which breached one of the laws of Trade Practices Act of 1974 which bars a corporation from selling goods or services under a false or misleading information.
Total Word Count 2779Download Full Solution