Background
1. The key issue in this case is the fact that Jenny who has faced an accident while travelling with the Hunter bus line wants to sue the company. The nature of accident is that she has removed her seatbelt to collect a book and in the very moment the bus braked causing her to fall and get injured. Jenny wanted damages for her injury but Hunter Bus line stated that she has signed a contract while purchasing the ticket which stated that Hunter Bus line is not liable for any kind of injury caused to a passenger who is not wearing a seat belt.
The key legislations that are applicable in this case involve Trade practice amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No 1) 2010. This amendment was in effect from 14 April 2010. This act made amendments to the acts like Trade Practice act 1974, Australian Securities and Investment commission act 2001 and corporation act 2001. The ‘unfair’ contract term will also come in effect from 1 July 2010 as par the amendment (Business 2018). Another key aspect that is going to be impacted in this case involves the exclusion clauses, section 60 of the consumer law.
The unfair contract terms can be used by jenny to sue the hunter bus line. The unfair contract terms are applicable on services as well as goods. There are some methods in which the occurrence of ‘unfair’ is tested on the contract. The three situation of unfair involve firstly imbalance in terms of rights and obligations of both the parties involved in the contract, secondly the interest of one party is undermined and lastly can harm a party in both financial and non financial manner in case of its application. So the contract that occurred between Jenny and hunter bus line clearly fulfils the third criteria that is if this contract is followed than injuries that are caused to the travellers are likely as there is no responsibilities of the travel agency in this regard (Cornwalls, 2018). The contract is likely to have impact on one party and limits the impact on the other party. The passengers can be injured but the travel agency only takes responsibility of a party that has a seatbelt on. Thus the responsibilities of the travel agency are limited by the contract.
Section 60 of the Australian consumer law has exclusion clauses which can also be used by Jenny for suing the bus company. This section has mentioned that the entry of a contract between two parties for product or service has an implied term that the service is going to be provided by the service provider with “due care and skill” (Lawhandbook, 2018). A company cannot make a contract which excludes this implied term. In case there is violation of the term the company can be sued.
So in conclusion it can be said that even though the Hunter Bus line has made a contract with Jenny which stated that they are not responsible for any injury of the passenger but it is not likely to save them from being sued because the terms of the contract is ‘unfair’ as par the new amendment of the contract law. Section 60 of the consumer law makes it necessary to ensure that care is taken in rendering service to the consumers and there is nothing that a business can do to avoid that. It is also notable that contract has been made by the bus agency at the time when they are about to make the journey and are not in a position to read the contract.
Legal Implications of Jenny’s Injury during Hunter Bus Line Accident
2. The key issue in this case is that there is need for the formation of a company which should include only the family members of the proprietor and have the name Anzac Coffee. The other conditions that are to be considered in this case is that in 1 years time the company will have gross asset of $ 5 million, gross revenue of $ 10 million and 20 full time employee and in 5 years time total asset will be of $ 13 million, revenue of $ 26 million and 5 full time employees and 66 employed for half the time.
The chief aspect of the formation of the company involves the Australian Securities and Investments commission approval. The legislation that is involved in it includes the Corporation Act 2001 (Gevurtz, 2010).
The business structure that should be chosen by the proprietor should be partnership because of the fact that the proprietor wants to make sure that the business is shared within the family. That is the reason that sole proprietorship is not the right option for the proprietor in this particular business case. The regulation suggests that the name of the company that is selected should be unique. There should be no other company with the same name. The Anzac coffee is a unique name that has been selected and there is no other company with the same name so this name can be availed by the proprietor. It is advisable that the company should chose limited liability. The company name should also display the liability of the company (Asic, 2018). The company should add proprietary limited at the end of the name. This proprietary company is likely to be considered small at the end of the first financial year. At the end of five year the company cannot be considered as small as the small proprietary companies should have gross assets of less than $ 12.5 million, gross revenue of $ 25 million and less than 50 employees (Asic, 2018). At the end of the 5th the Anzac Coffee is going to be considered as a large proprietary company.
In conclusion it can be said that the best mode of starting business in this case is proprietary limited. The company will have to start as a small proprietary company and as par its projection by the end of the 5th year is going to be large proprietary company.
Reference List
Asic (2018). Are you a large or small proprietary company | ASIC – Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [online] Asic.gov.au. Available at: https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-reporting-and-audit/preparers-of-financial-reports/are-you-a-large-or-small-proprietary-company/ [Accessed 12 Sep. 2018].
Asic (2018). Changes to your company | ASIC – Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [online] Asic.gov.au. Available at: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/changes-to-your-company/ [Accessed 12 Sep. 2018].
Business (2018). Restructuring. [online] Business.gov.au. Available at: https://www.business.gov.au/change-and-growth/restructuring [Accessed 12 Sep. 2018].
Cornwalls (2018). New Australian Consumer Laws Affecting Unfair Contractual Terms in Standard-form Contracts :: Cornwall Stodart Lawyers. [online] Cornwalls.com.au. Available at: https://cornwalls.com.au/sharing-knowledge/legal-updates/new-australian-consumer-laws-affecting-unfair-contractual-terms-in-standard-form-contracts.aspx [Accessed 12 Sep. 2018].
Gevurtz, F.A., 2010. Corporation law. West.
Lawhandbook (2018). Exclusion Clauses and the Australian Consumer Law. [online] Lawhandbook.sa.gov.au. Available at: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02s06s01.php [Accessed 12 Sep. 2018].
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
