The Situation Involving Glowing Health Drinks and Big Cola Co.
1. As per the relevant sections of 45AA and 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 the Glowing Health Drinks (GHD) can take a few specific actions against BBC. The Rule or the legislation therefore states and discusses the provisions of civil penalty related to the cartel conduct. It further states that an organization or a corporation should not make or give any kind of effect to the contract that is formed based on the contents of a cartel provision. The cartel provision further focuses on allocating customers, price-fixing and suppliers that are in competition with each other. Thus, in the given scenario, it has been observed that due to the late supply and low price of their product named Choke, GHD had struggled and suffered to maintain their business. However, in such circumstances, section 44AA of the above mentioned act can be applied. This is because due to the decision of the price change done by Bud and against the policy of BBC, there was a initial loss and sufferance of GHD. Therefore, it can be concluded stating that being a local manufacturer, GHD can take under the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 against BCC.
2. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can take actions against BCC and depending on the circumstances, the Court will apply the abovementioned related sections of the act. The Federal Court can either dismiss the claim or ask the manufacturers or the parties for compensation if the conduct of BCC had constituted the method of price fixing. If the situation further shows that due to the activities of Bud, loss was suffered by the other party. Therefore, the Court can apply the relevant section is this situation when due to the manufacturer, the loss is suffered by the retailers and the customers based on the sections 44AA and 45 of the above mentioned act. This principle has been mentioned in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Link Solutions Pty Limited (No 3) [2012] FCA 348.
3. Apart from BCC, another entity that can take actions based under the Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 is IGA. This is because IGA had suffered loss because it had agreed to sell their drinks nationwide with the help of BCC manufacturer. IGA got disappointed after investing the money and asking for help from Big Cola Co. BCC was out of stock of the most sold drink because they were out of stock. Hence, based on this scenario, the possible actions can be taken by IGA against BCC with the relevant provisions of the act.
Application of ss45AA and ss45 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
1. The issue in this situation is whether GHD can take any actions under the Competition and Consumer Act, 2001 against BCC based on the relevant sections of 46 and 47. The rule however states that an organization has the authority to control the market goods and services that should not be in advantage of the power as related to the market. A corporation under this act has the power to substantially damage the competitor in the market and prevent the entry of another individual into the market. As per the facts of the case, it can be said that GHD had suffered damage because of the delay of the delivery of products that were suppose to get provided by BCC. However, the particular section of 46 will be applicable in this situation.
2. The related issue of this scenario is whether the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can take any kind of actions the BCC. From the given facts of the scenario, the Court will apply the Competition and Consumer Act, 2001. This section states and deals with the situation where a corporation associates itself in the practice of supplying or allowing or the goods and services. If in case the organization will not do it except to a limited extent then the Court will apply the section 47 of the above mentioned act. However, it can be said that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission lays down these two relevant sections, which governs the concept of a situation when GDH can apply the relevant section and ask for compensation.
1. The main facts of the case are based on the Australian Competition and Consumer Act. According to this case, Active Diva sells its products on the women’s wear and become a profitable company within a small span of time. Leena Jane and Rockstar Sport controlled the market of the company. Diana was the national marketing manager for the company and deals with all the marketing analysis for the company. For the betterment of the company, the two directors have held a meeting and decided not to sale their products with discount. Further, they have ordered Giant shop and Cornucopia shop to stop selling their products. It has been observed from the case that niece of Diana has started up a business of similar kind and asked Diana for help. Diana has informed all the retailers to supply products of Active Diva to those who will buy the products of her niece’s shop. The main issues of the case are:
- Whether Diana has attracted the provision of section 18 of Australian Consumer Law or not;
- Whether the decisions took by Leena and Rockstar has been analyzed under section 93 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) or not;
- Whether the acts of the reseller has contravened section 48 of the ACC Act 2010 or not
The Court’s Application of the Relevant Sections
This mentality of Diana attracts section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, as the nature of the conduct made by Diana was deceptive. Under this section, the affected party and Australian Competition and Consumer authority could take action against the offender. Similar principle has been followed in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Lt. [2013] HCA 54. Further, the nature of the statement made by Diana in this context is unconscionable and this could be banned under section 21 of the consumer law. Further, it is an unfair practice because there is no relation between the products of Active Diva and products of Diana’s niece. Further, the decision made by Leena Jane and Rockstar Sport should be analyzed under section 93 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It is required to be determined whether the decision has been made for the benefit of public at large or not. Further, a matter of resale price maintenance could be applied in the case of a shop who has sold the products of the Active Diva in a much lower price (30% less than the RRP). According to section 48 of ACCA 2010, no reseller is allowed to sale a product below the minimum price. This principle has been established in Re Heating Centre Pty Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1986] FCA 73. The Australian Consumer Court can take action against Diana, Leena, Rockstar and the reseller for making violence regarding those sections of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
2. Considering the acts done by the characters of the case, it can be stated that their conducts have attracted the provision of chapter IV of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). If any person makes any breach by misusing the market power, reselling the price maintenance and commits exclusionary conduct, they will be held liable for the offence mentioned under chapter IV of the Act and monetary penalties will be imposed on them. Further, an infringement notice could be served to the wrongdoers by ACCC. In case of non-compliance, the offenders may have to face penalties under section 155 of the Act. Further, the offender could have to go jail for non-compliance. According to section 76 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, pecuniary penalties will be imposed on the parties. Further, injunction regarding the cats of the offender could be imposed under section 80 of the Act 2010. If it has been proved that the directors of Active Diva had failed to act for the best interest of the public, they could be disqualified from their directorship under section 86E of the Act 2010.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
