Elizabeth And SSRU ACL 
Elizabeth & SSRU
Part A:
Issue: Can Elizabeth sue SSRU for damages under Australian Consumer Law (ACL)?
R/A:
1 1. Supplier: SSRU was the supplier of sound system.
2 2. Consumer: Elizabeth purchased the sound system for the price of $33,000, which was less than $40,000, so she was a consumer, S3(1) ACL.
And she did not buy it for resale, resupply or manufacture purposes. S3(2)
3 3. The purchase of that sound system was a business transaction happened in trade or commerce.
4 4.Goods:
S54(1): The sound system must be of acceptable quality; Grant v Australian Knitting Mills; David Jones v Willis
S54(2): As the new speakers for the sound system did not work, which means that there were serious defects in that goods and they cannot fit for the purposes for which the goods of that kind were commonly supplied.
S55(2): Elizabeth has already made known the specific purpose for which she bought the sound system, that is, the software had to be compatible with the computer sound equipment.
And she also relied on the salesperson’s skill in choosing the appropriate goods. So there is a guarantee for the goods to fit for the disclosed purpose. Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan
However, the software was not compatible with the computer equipment, which means that the goods didn’t fit for the disclosed purpose.
5 5.S64: SSRU was not permitted to exclude, restrict or modify the statutory guarantees and any attempt to do so is void;
S64 (A) allows the limitation clause if the goods are not of a type normally acquired for PDH uses. As what Elizabeth purchased was a sound system for industrial uses, so the limitation clause made sense there, which means that the damages would only be limited to repair or replacement.
6 6.Remedies:
S260: The failure there is a major failure as:
1 (1)Elizabeth would not buy the sound system from SSRU if she was fully acquainted with the nature or extent of the failure;
2 (2)The sound system cannot fit for the disclosed purpose as for the compatibility of the
Part A:
Issue: Can Elizabeth sue SSRU for damages under Australian Consumer Law (ACL)?
R/A:
1 1. Supplier: SSRU was the supplier of sound system.
2 2. Consumer: Elizabeth purchased the sound system for the price of $33,000, which was less than $40,000, so she was a consumer, S3(1) ACL.
And she did not buy it for resale, resupply or manufacture purposes. S3(2)
3 3. The purchase of that sound system was a business transaction happened in trade or commerce.
4 4.Goods:
S54(1): The sound system must be of acceptable quality; Grant v Australian Knitting Mills; David Jones v Willis
S54(2): As the new speakers for the sound system did not work, which means that there were serious defects in that goods and they cannot fit for the purposes for which the goods of that kind were commonly supplied.
S55(2): Elizabeth has already made known the specific purpose for which she bought the sound system, that is, the software had to be compatible with the computer sound equipment.
And she also relied on the salesperson’s skill in choosing the appropriate goods. So there is a guarantee for the goods to fit for the disclosed purpose. Carpet Call Pty Ltd v Chan
However, the software was not compatible with the computer equipment, which means that the goods didn’t fit for the disclosed purpose.
5 5.S64: SSRU was not permitted to exclude, restrict or modify the statutory guarantees and any attempt to do so is void;
S64 (A) allows the limitation clause if the goods are not of a type normally acquired for PDH uses. As what Elizabeth purchased was a sound system for industrial uses, so the limitation clause made sense there, which means that the damages would only be limited to repair or replacement.
6 6.Remedies:
S260: The failure there is a major failure as:
1 (1)Elizabeth would not buy the sound system from SSRU if she was fully acquainted with the nature or extent of the failure;
2 (2)The sound system cannot fit for the disclosed purpose as for the compatibility of the