Australian Competition and Consumer Commission †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Answer: Introduction: The report did not explain the role of the corporation in the litigation completely as it briefly mentioned that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) empowers regulators to obtain documents, evidence and information under section of the Act. It did not mention the obligations of companies not to engage in unconscionable conduct[1]. The legal issues raised in the report were not clearly identified as the allegations were emphasized mainly on the conduct of the company instead of emphasizing more on the existence of a scheme. It simply stated how the store managers required the suppliers to compensate for the discrepancies of the company. It merely mentioned about the breaches committed by the company under sections [21, 22], Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)[2]. The analysis and explanation provided in this report were convincing as the ACCC failed to provide sufficient evidence to institute the case against Woolworths. It merely relied on the documentary evidences and did not obtain any evidence from the suppliers in question. As per the information provided, the importance of litigation has not been sufficiently drawn as it signified that despite committing breach of the business obligations, ACCC must not initiate legal proceedings against the directors only on the ground that they have limited liability. This would provide an opportunity to the directors to commit violations and get away. Injunction as a remedy can be sought against any company directors which would refrain them from committing violations of their business obligations. The report explained the role of the corporation in the litigation, which is to safeguard small businesses from unfair terms with respect to the business-to-business standard form contracts. The ACCC intended to seek preliminary discovery and initiated injunction to refrain JJR from relying on eight impugned terms that were later found to be void under section 23(1) of the ACL[3]. The legal issues raised in this case report were clearly identified as they lacked transparency and the words were ambiguous written in legal language instead of English language[4]. The terms were said to form significant imbalance between the obligations and rights between the customers and the business, which would have been detriment to the business if they were relied upon.The logical explanations provided in the report is convincing as it explained the circumstances under which JJR could have avoided the legal proceedings and that JJR failed to comprehend the consequences of using unfair contract terms with small businesses.The importance of litigation has been explained properly in this case report. This case shall act as a landmark case for all the businesses as several businesses will review their standard contract terms while entering into contracts. This case shall enable the ACCC to determine similar cases and compare the issues with the circumstances of this case to proc eed with an action. References ACCC v Woolworths limited [2016] FCA 1472 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) V JJ Richards Sons Pty Ltd (JJR) [2017] FCA 1224. Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)