The paper 'Business Law Issues ' is a wonderful example of a Business Case Study. Elvis inflated the historical figures of the cafe by 60% for the purposes of inducing Mr. Manfredi to make the purchase. Mr. Manfredi learned later that the figures have been inflated after he came upon some documents. According to the Australian Consumer Law, business conduct is likely to break the law if it gives a misleading overall impression among the intended audience with regards to price, value, or quality of goods and services. The information that was presented to Mr.
Manfredi was false as it was not a true representation of the value of the company. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) is for the purposes of protecting consumers against unlawful commercial practices. Section 52 of the Act prohibits deceptive and misleading conduct when carrying out commercial activity. The contract law in Australia also prohibits the use of deceptive and misleading conduct or representation during a commercial activity. Penalties may be imposed on the party that is found engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct. The party that faces loss or damages as a result of deceptive and misleading conduct has a right for compensation by the party that caused it.
The paper thus discusses the case of Mr. Manfredi in relation to the common laws with a view of advising him. Discussion In the case of Robson Lindsay Timbs; David Bryce Stapleton and Cream Silver Holdings Pty Ltd v Birrell Management (Australia) Pty Ltd and Max Neville Birrell, the applicants were provided advice by the respondent with regards to the profitability of the business. The applicants were also provided with a forecast with regards to the profitability of the company in the future.
However, the information turned out to be false as the company failed to make any profits. It was established that a false representation had taken place and that the conduct of the respondent was deceptive and misleading. This is an indication that providing a false representation of a company amounts to a deceptive or misleading conduct. This may lead to the party involved making looses and hence impacting negatively on the business operations. The contract law prohibits such a conduct in the commercial activities as it impacts negatively on one party.
The contract between Mr. , Manfredi, and Elvis was base on deceptive and misleading conduct since the historical financial figures were inflated by 60%. The inflation of the figures is an indication that a false representation of the café was portrayed and it amounts to deceptive and misleading conduct. The inflated figures were for the purposes of inducing Mr. Manfredi to make the purchase decision. This indicates that Elvis was aware of the actual performance of the café and Mr.
Manfredi may have not made the purchase decision had he been provided with the actual financial information of the café . According to the Australian Consumer law, it is unlawful for a business to make statements in trade and commerce that may lead to the misleading of a party involved in the contract. A behavior that is likely to deceive or mislead is also prohibited. The Australian Consumer laws also make it illegal for a party to fail to disclose relevant information, make promises, give opinions, or provide predictions that are deceptive and misleading.
In the case of Hardy v Your Tabs Pty Ltd, a restaurateur failed to provide adequate information with regards to the sale of the restaurant. The sale of the restaurant took place since the owner feared that a new restaurant was set to be opened and thus increasing competition. It was established that the owner of the restaurant was engaged in misleading conduct by failing to provide all the information with regards to the sale of the restaurant. In the case of Mr. Manfredi, Elvis failed to provide adequate information with regard to the sale of the café .
Inflating the figures is an indication that adequate information was not provided. Mr. Manfredi was also able to discover an old tax document which is a further indication that the information that was provided to him was not only inflated but inadequate. The failure to provide adequate information during the purchase amounts to misleading conduct. It is thus important to note that Elvis has been engaged in misleading conduct contrary to section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
Robson Lindsay Timbs; David Bryce Stapleton and Cream Silver Holdings Pty Ltd v Birrell Management (Australia) Pty Ltd and Max Neville Birrell  FCA 102 (6 April 1990)
Hardy v Your Tabs Pty Ltd (in Liq)  NSW CA 150
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v W G & B Pty Ltd & McLean  HCA 4
James Roycroft Frith and Betty Clarissa Frith v Gold Coast Mineral Springs Pty Ltd; Park Avenue Enterprises Pty Ltd; Brian Patrick Mcdermott  FCA 28; (1983) 65 FLR 213 (28 February 1983)
Gould v Vaggelas  HCA 68
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Books and articles
Corones, S, 2013, The Australian Consumer Law, Thomson Reuters, Lawbook Co.
Griggs, L, 2011, The OECD Consumer Policy Toolkit: the companion to the Australian Consumer Law, Competition and Consumer Law News, 26(6), 66-70.
Price, R, 2010, Causation, Contributory Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Conduct–A Modest Proposal for Change, Australian Competition and Consumer Law Journal, 18(2), 93-118.
Latimer, P, 2012, Australian Business Law 2012, CCH Australia Limited.