*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law<\/em> (Volume 23 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n A fly in the ointment for the ACCC? Implications of the Cement Australia decision for the interpretation of section 46<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Caroline Coops<\/p>\n The recent Cement Australia decision of the Federal Court raises a number of questions for the interpretation and application of s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Given the Australian Competition and Consumer Committee\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s (ACCC) historical lack of success in contested s 46 actions, the provision has been reviewed a number of times, including the recent Harper Review. This article considers whether the Cement Australia decision resolves the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153would vs could\u00e2\u20ac\u009d debate in the context of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153take advantage\u00e2\u20ac\u009d limb of s 46, and makes some general comments as to possible implications of the decision, both for the ACCC when enforcing the provision and for the Harper Review.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Acceptable quality v merchantable quality<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em>Lynsey Edgar<\/p>\n The consumer guarantee of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153acceptable quality\u00e2\u20ac\u009d under the Australian Consumer Law replaced the implied warranty of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153merchantable quality\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in 2011. The first part of this article considers the differences in meaning between the two standards, drawing guidance from foreign case law, and concludes that, from a legal perspective, any differences between the old warranty and the new guarantee are minor. From a practical perspective, however, it is argued that the new terminology arms consumers with greater knowledge and understanding of their rights, which has increased, and will continue to increase, the protection afforded to consumers. The second part of this article considers whether, rather than introducing a new guarantee of acceptable quality, it would have been preferable to have made other reforms to consumer protection law. In particular, consideration is given to whether the unfair contract terms regime could have instead covered the field, or whether a general prohibition on unfair practices should have been introduced. It is concluded, though, that the new consumer guarantee of acceptable quality provides greater clarity and certainty for consumers and businesses alike, and four years after its introduction, can be viewed as a positive reform.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES<\/a><\/p>\n CASE NOTE<\/a><\/p>\n WHAT IF \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6<\/a><\/p>\n COMMENTS FROM COMMERCE<\/a><\/p>\n CONSUMER CONCERNS<\/a><\/p>\n SNAPSHOTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Douglas Shirrefs <\/em>and Tom Clarke<\/em><\/p>\n ECONOMIC(S) MATTERS<\/a><\/p>\n REPORT FROM NEW ZEALAND<\/a><\/p>\n REPORT FROM ASIA<\/a><\/p>\n REPORT FROM RUSSIA<\/a><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: AJCCL Vol 23 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
Sections<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n