* Sale of Goods Act (Allowed seller to exclude the implied terms so that the protection it gave could be taken away by a clearly worded exclusion clause) * Tort of negligence
* Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
(a) Are not of acceptable quality: s 54 (Supplier) and s271 (Manufacturer) (b) Sue for damages for any loss or damage caused by failure to comply with guarantee. S54(2) (Safe) (Supplier) and s59(1) (Express Warranty) (Manufacturer) * Part 3-5 of the ACL
* Part 3-2 Div 1 of the ACL
* No difference, under part 3-5 of the ACL, it gives rights in addition to other rights which a plaintiff injured by defective product had not purchased the goods or obtained the goods by way of a gift from the purchaser. (b) Would the owner of the destroyed antique vase be able to claim compensation? What laws would be relied on? Ans:
Yes. Part 3-5 of ACL indicate that the manufacturers are to compensate persons for losses caused by defective product if it damages other goods and losses belonging to the consumer. (C) What laws would be used to obtain a refund for the defective juice extractor? Would the retailer and/or the manufacturer be liable? Ans:
* S 59(2) of ACL (supplier) (Express warranty)
* Both would be reliable, unless the defects were solely caused by the negligence of the manufacturer: s 274, then the ACL allows the supplier to deny liability.