Australian Consumer Law: Avinash Vs Cafe

Rule:

According to the Australian Consumer Law consumers guarantees for contracts which comply with the definition provided in S3 which states that:

A person is a ‘consumer’ if:

a) The price of goods or services does not exceed $40,000

b) If price exceeds $40,000, the goods or services are the kind normally used for personal, domestic or household purposes

Following the Australian Food Regulations Act 2003,the Cafe will have to pay attention towards the standards and the regulations on the use of implied food claims. The Exclusion clause which is basically a term of a contract which has the ability to limit or completely exclude the liability of a breaching party is to be applied with respect to the 2 tests of Unsigned Documents methods which

the reasonable notice test The tests are objective and applied sequentially in the case of Avinash Vs Cafe where the supposedly breaching party is the Cafe. Exclusion clauses may be contained in contractual documents, printed on tickets, receipts and dockets or on signs. The distinction is important as the rules differ. According to Causer v Brown The nature of the document test involves examining the docket and asking what is its role in the transaction? Would a reasonable person expect it to contain terms of the contract? According to the rule in Parker v South Eastern Railway The reasonable notice test is applied if the court concludes that the document is a contractual document. This test involves examining whether reasonable steps were taken by the business operator to bring the clause to the notice and attention of the customer. In the case of Avinash vs. Cafe it is important to

Cafe it can be observed that as Avinash used his money to purchase the Cappuccino and Danish Pastry he qualifies to be a consumer. After Avinash's tooth was injured by eating the Danish Pastry and he went to the manager asking for compensation for the dental repair. The manager showed him the clause Exclusion Clause on the back of the printed ticket which exclude any liability to the cafe if a consumer is injured by consuming the cafes food. After applying the 2 tests using the principles from the precedent Causer v Brown and Parker v South Eastern Railway it can be clearly seen that the clause was on the back of the ticket which no normal person who is waiting for food will look at and Avinash has been a frequent customer of the cafe and no one from the cafe ever informed the "Consumer" Avinash about any condition or clauses. The evidence against the cafe can be backed by the Australian Consumer Law S23 ,Australian Consumer Law S18 and Australian Contract Law Subdivision 4

Conclusion

In conclusion the cafe cannot rely on the ticket to avoid liability in relation to Avinash injury and will have to pay the compensation to Avinash. been introduced. In addition to the context, the customer is unable to demand as a compensation of his