Internal Code: IAH115
Answering the questions
1 As already explained, the questions you are required to answer are designed to enable you to express your own understanding of what the three courts separately determined. You are permitted to quote briefly (one or two short sentences if you consider they encapsulate a legal point) but it is not possible to answer the questions simply by locating the relevant paragraphs in the judgment and copying them into your answer. Turnitin detects this.
2 While it is not compulsory, I encourage you to express answers to each question in either numbered or bullet point form rather than long paragraphs. This means that students whose English writing ability is not good will not be disadvantaged.
3 You must clearly identify, by a numbered sub-heading (ie, Question 1, Question 2 etc), the question you are answering but do not copy the question itself into your answer because that will cause a false “high similarity” score in Turnitin
4 Word limit is about 1200.
5 Remember this is a group assignment. All group members should contribute ideas, even if only one student writes the final answers for submission. Where the marker suspects that a student has not genuinely participated, that student may later be tested by being asked to respond to some oral questions about the court’s judgment.
There were three problems with TPG’s advertising which the ACCC considered to be misleading; state briefly what those three were [3 marks]
The ACCC alleged that TPG’s advertising contravened two STATUTORY provisions; what were those statutory provisions (ie, which sections of which Act) and what did the ACCC say about the advertisements which contravened each of those provisions [4 marks – 1 each for identifying each of the two statutory provisions and 1 each for stating how the advertisements contravened that provision]
What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge about each of the following aspects of the advertising? In your answer, consider the matters suggested in italics. [5 marks total made up as shown]
1. bundling (who did the judge believe would be the “target audience” and what was it about the advertising which could mislead that audience?) [2 marks]
2. the set-up fee (in what way was the advertising capable of misleading consumers about this?) [2 marks]
3. single price (in what way was this aspect in breach of the statute?) [1 mark]
The Full Court came to two important different conclusions from those of the primary judge when deciding whether the TPG advertising was misleading? What were those two different conclusions [2 marks]
The High Court decided that the conclusions of the Full Court were not correct. For what two reasons did the High Court differ from the Full Court’s reasoning? [2 marks]
The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a precedent the ratio from an earlier case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (“Puxu”). The High Court said that the Full Court should not have applied (ie, the Full Court should have “distinguished”) the principle in Puxu and it gave three reasons for this. Briefly explain any two of the reasons the High Court said made the Puxu case different from the TPG advertising. [2 marks]
If you were employed in the marketing section of an internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an advertising campaign promoting an attractive “plan” for membership in which there were several “parts” (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by potential customers, what advice would you give about the form the
advertising should take, based on your understanding of the High Court’s ruling in ACCC v TPG? [2 marks]
Enjoy 40% Discount on All Assignments. Call: +61 282 942 025