How does the sale fit into the totality of D’s activities? (Lubidineuse‚ CC). How the land is used and will be used? 1. One unit is being sold by the owner occupier as a private sale: Directly apply O’Brien – there is no misleading or deceptive conduct because the sale of a home cannot be classified as a trade or commerce 2. Another unit is being sold by the real estate agent on behalf of an owner occupier. RA also claims the view can never be built out: RA is liable but the principal
Premium Law Corporation Common law
The ethical dilemma in this scenario stems from the Prosecutor in the DA Office’s attempt to manipulate the court and jury using deceptive tactics. Specifically‚ he presented a bloody shirt to the jury‚ suggesting that the defendant was guilty if it contained the victim’s blood. However‚ crucial information was omitted: the blood on the shirt was not human‚ and the shirt was not worn on the day of the incident. Furthermore‚ the prosecutor’s failure to apologize for causing another prosecutor to be
Premium
interpretive provisions about consumer law concepts. * Chapter 2 — General protections: general protections‚ which create standards of business conduct in the market. Specifically‚ Chapter 2 includes: - a general ban on misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce; -a general ban on unconscionable conduct in trade or commerce and specific bans on unconscionable conduct in consumer and some business transactions; and - a provision that makes unfair
Free Law Contract Common law
advertisements There are so many advertisements existing in nowadays society‚ however‚ number of the sellers were accused and being complain in the past years because of the misleading statements or misrepresentations shown in their advertisements. Since Hong Kong still does not have a comprehensive law which the misleading advertisement will lead to obstruction of fair competition as well as misinform the audience‚ something has to be done by the government. It is necessarily for the government
Free Advertising Marketing Propaganda
to as Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) and if so‚ her available remedies. Issue: Were the statements misleading or deceptive in breach of the Australian Consumer Law? Law: • Section 18‚ Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (or alternatively you can say Section 18 Australian Consumer Law which is the title for Schedule 2) • Section 4 (“presumption of misleading”) • Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell
Premium Law Contract Consumer protection
QUESTION Running late for his exciting evening law class‚ Sam desperately seeks out a car park in the CBD of Melbourne‚ state of Victoria Australia. He spots the car park operated by Citipark Ltd. Sam drives up a ramp which has raised concrete barriers on either side. As it is rush hour‚ there are a few cars in front of him and soon some more line up behind him. Sam stopped his car at the barrier entrance of the car park which had a mechanical arm preventing cars moving into the parking
Premium Parking Parking lot Parking space
consider how these idealized images are distorting our idea of beauty" (Britain bans 2 misleading makeup ads‚ 2011). In July‚ 2011 two advertisements for a Maybelline wrinkle cream featuring models Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington were banned because they were deemed to be too airbrushed and were misrepresenting the product. The United States is somewhat behind in the attempt to regulate advertising and misleading product claims. “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had yet to offer a precise legal
Premium Advertising Deception
Running head: VIRTUES OF COMPETITION A Competitive America Tonya Y. Stansberry DeVry University Abstract American businesses are based on free trade in a Capitalist system. In its simplest form this means that each business is free to compete with the next. That the entrepreneur is free to risk and open a business whether it is for social gain or profit. Businesses openly compete for the business of the client or customer because they need the income. There were not always
Premium Monopoly Identity theft Sherman Antitrust Act
This case concerns the sale of land in Toorak road. The purchasers‚ Dr Moss and his wife Ms John‚ wanted to purchase 502A and 502B Toorak Road used as a extension of them practice. The Mosses conducted their practice at 504 and 506 Toorak Road‚ which was next door to the auction property. They are worried it would diminish the amenity of their property if property developer bought the object property. In order to disguise their interest‚ Mosses arranged for two people to assist in purchasing the
Premium Auction Deception Real estate
possible risks and benefits associated with the study. • Fifth‚ the IRB must determine the frequency of review and when necessary‚ providing adequate monitoring of the data collected from the study. Deception refers to deliberately withholding and misleading information to the participant (“Deception Topics‚” n.d.). Using deliberate deception to get an individual to participate in a study is always unethical‚ though not all research can be done without deception. For example‚ if researchers believe
Premium Scientific method Science Research