Australian Marketing Law for Johnson Chemicals Ltd- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theAustralian Marketing Law for Johnson Chemicals Ltd. Answer: Facts Johnson Chemicals Ltd. has developed a new weed spray which he wants to manufacture and sell to the public. There are other competitors in the market who are dealing in similar products and aim to manufacture and sell these products in the market. The companies are situated in Australia and hence are governed by the Australian Consumer and Competition Act, 2010. The Australian Consumer and Competition Act read with the Australian Consumer Law mandate that a company or a seller of any product shall be governed by the rules of the fair trade practices norms[1]. Fair Trading All products sold in the Australian market are governed by the Australian Consumer and Competition Act and the Australian Consumer Law. The basic premise of these acts is to ensure that there is no unfair competition in the market and fair trade practices are maintained. All sellers or producers of goods are obligated to be guided by the fair trading standards and any violation of the same shall be penalized. Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd[2] is a landmark judgment that deals with fair market and competition in the market. The case is important because the Australian Tribunal acknowledged for the very first time that in cases of similar products in the market, there shall be rivalry. This case defined the scope of market and competition. The tribunal said that whenever two products are competing in the market, there shall be price flexibility and the rivalry shall be independent of the market forces and it should exist without any consideration to the price-product p ackaging[3]. Misuse Of Market Posiiton The Tribunal has also concluded that whenever a product has entered a market knowing well that there are competitors in the same market, he shall not take undue advantage of his market position[4]. By undue advantage, it means, that the seller shall not abuse his market position that he has achieved by being the same market. Section 46 talks in detail about the misuse of market power by any corporation. If it can be seen that a producer has a significant degree of market power and is using that market power to gain unfair advantage in the market, or is acting in violation of Competition Act, he shall be said to be acting in violation of Consumer Act. A seller is said to be abusing his market power if it can be seen that he is taking undue advantage of his market power. The seller shall not deal in predatory pricing and shall not attach exclusive dealing in his contract[5]. Unfair Trade Practices Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law talks about prohibition of unfair trade practices. This section specifically governs unfair trade practices and conduct which are misleading or defective in nature[6]. S.18 is a negative clause that prevents or restricts any person from indulging in trade activity that will lead to unfairness or buyers will be mislead into buying a product. Sellers duties are inclusive of trust and if a seller by his conduct misleads anyone into believing that his product is of highest quality, he shall be penalized as that leads to unfair trade practices. If it is seen that a buyer is duped into trusting the quality of the product and as a result of the deceptive words of the seller buys products to see they are misleading, he shall have the right to sue the seller[7]. Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law talks about situations and conditions that will lead to unfair trade practices[8]. A clear understanding of the section provides that there shall be no misrepresentation related to the quality, standard, value of the product. Restrictive Trade Practices Section 45 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act restricts any contract that has a debilitating effect on the market[9]. No contract shall be in the element of reducing competition. If any seller tries to impede the entry of any other competitor in the market, it shall fall under restrictive trade practices because hampering the entry of any supplier in the market falls under the bracket of restrictive trade practices[10]. In this instance, the products are similar in nature and hence Johnson is duty bound to ensure that no restrictions are placed on the competitors or the buyers[11]. Section 54 and 55[12] place duties on the seller and mandates that he supply goods of proper quality. Conclusion All the above mentioned conditions shall apply on Johnson as he is dealing in a product which has a high market value and a potential to be manufactured by other competitors. Therefore, in the present case, the onus is on Johnson Chemicals Ltd to maintain fair trading and impose conditions that are not restrictive to trade. The Consumer Act lays down the duties of the seller while entering into the market and dealing in products. The seller is duty bound to supply proper goods of quality and free from defects. Bibliography Cases Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd [1976] 25 FLR 169 Statute Australia Competition and Consumer Act, 2010 Australia Consumer Law, 2010 Articles Corones, Stephen G.Competition law in Australia. Thomson Reuters Australia, Limited, 2014. Whish, Richard, and David Bailey.Competition law. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. Forsyth, Peter.Competition versus Predation in aviation markets: a survey of experience in North America, Europe and Australia. Routledge, 2018. Dunne, Niamh.Competition Law and Economic Regulation. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Kaplow, Louis. "Recoupment and Predatory Pricing Analysis." (2016). Elzinga, Kenneth G., and DAVID E. Mills. "Predatory pricing."The Oxford Handbook of International Antitrust Economics2 (2015): 40. Swan, Dennis, et al.Competition in British industry: Restrictive practices legislation in theory and practice. Vol. 2. Routledge, 2018.