Marcus Conduct In Trade And Commerce Case Study

1608 Words4 Pages

a. Discuss whether Marcus’ conduct was “in trade and commerce” within the meaning of s 18(1).
S18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) states that ‘a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive’. Trade and commerce means ‘(a) trade and commerce within Australia; or (b) trade and commerce between Australia and places outside Australia; and includes any business or professional activity (whether or not carried on for profit)’. However, the actual words ‘in trade or commerce’ are not defined in the act itself and in some instances are quite difficult to understand, as such, it has been left up to case law to decipher what the terms actually mean.

The term ‘trade or commerce’ can be construed as encompassing conduct in the …show more content…

What this approach is mainly concerned with is the conduct of a person with persons/consumer with whom they have dealings with in trading or commercial activities, these activities have a trading or commercial characteristic. According to the facts, the restrictive approach is what will be used. This approach requires the conduct to have a commercial nature to it, though it is detrimental that this conduct is central to the transaction and not incidental. As such, Marcus’ conduct does have a central commercial nature. His dealings with Sonikcan were purely commercial, he bought the B7 cameras from them and then re-sold them online for money, this transaction is central to his conduct. The fact that he acquired these cameras (goods) from a business would most probably always be classified as within trade or

Open Document