Contemporary consumer law : the role and effectiveness of regulation in consumer protection

This issue of the Griffith Law Review focuses on consumer law, and the pervasive nature of this area of law. We are all consumers, but do not necessarily identify as such, nor are we a homogeneous group. The boundaries of

Unfair terms in residential land contracts : will the Australian consumer law improve a buyer’s bargaining position?

The prohibition on unfair contract terms in standard form consumer contracts has the potential to significantly impact on the terms of contracts for the sale of land. The definition of ‘consumer contract’ includes contracts for the sale or grant of an interest in land to an individual wholly or predominantly for personal or domestic use. Therefore, a contract for the purchase of a residence for personal occupation by the buyer, as opposed to a purchase for investment purposes, will be a consumer contract potentially attracting the application of the unfair terms provisions. Significant consumer protection mechanisms already exist in most state jurisdictions requiring disclosure of relevant matters to the buyer and providing remedies for the provision of misleading conduct. Minimal evidence of unfair terms in land contract was presented to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Australian Consumer Policy Framework raising the question as to whether there is an identified problem of unfair terms in real estate contracts and if so, whether the same economic and ethical rationales justify regulatory intervention. This article examines what effect if any the introduction of the unfair contract provisions will have on the enforcement of residential land contracts and the viability of previously accepted conditions if challenged as being “unfair terms”. The article concludes that despite the existence of several potentially unfair terms in some land contracts, the intervention of the rules of equity to overcome perceived hardship or unfairness to buyers from strict enforcement of terms means the unfair terms provisions are only likely to operate on terms untouched by those principles. In the authors’ view the scope for operation of the unfair terms provisions will be limited to terms untouched by the principles of equity and consumer protection legislation making it unlikely that there will be any significant realignment of the contractual obligations and rights of buyers and sellers of land.

The Australian Consumer Law

Reform of Australia’s inconsistent Commonwealth, State and Territory consumer laws is now a reality. The 1 January 2011 commencement of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, is the culmination of a long process of consultation. Unifying and rationalising the plethora of laws, this new Act sees the disappearance of the “Trade Practices Act” and the amendment of a raft of State and Territory legislation; the new national regime informed by them operates in their stead. This is indisputably the most comprehensive change in the history of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This book aims to assist practitioners, academics and students understand the Australian Consumer Law regime and its impact. It summarises the history and constitutional basis of the ACL, explaining how the ACL will be implemented, amended and enforced. In addition it explores how the various general and specific protections interrelate, and the scope of their overlap, and considers the content of the ACL, and the principal changes from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act.

The Australian Consumer Law (2nd ed.)

The purpose of this book is to summarise and explain the substantive rights of consumers, and the obligations of businesses under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Since the first edition there have been two significant legislative developments at the Federal and State level which have been incorporated into this edition. The Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth), which amends the provisions of the ACL relating to unconscionable conduct, took effect from 1 January 2012. In addition to this the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) has been replaced by the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), which applies the ACL as a law of the State of Victoria.

Australian Consumer Law Commentary and Materials [5th Ed.]

"The Australian Consumer Law came into operation on 1 January 2011 as a single national law. It replaced 17 different pieces of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation relating to consumer protection. Its introduction meant that for the first time, consumers throughout Australia had the same rights and remedies and correspondingly, businesses had the same obligations and responsibilities towards consumers without the barrier of confusing and expensive local variations in the law. Australian Consumer Law: Commentary and Materials contains up-to-date material on the Australian Consumer Law, and in particular the fifth edition incorporates: a revised treatment of unconscionability, taking account of the changes to Part 2-2 of the ACL that became effective in 2012; other State and Federal provisions relating to unfair terms and cases such as Kakavas v Crown Melbourne, ACCC v Lux Distributors, Director of Consumer Affairs v Scully and PT Ltd v Spuds Surf; a comprehensive treatment of the impact of Google v ACCC, Forrest v ASIC and ACCC v TPG – the trilogy of decisions that provide the most recent insights into the High Court’s thinking on aspects of the prohibitions of misleading conduct in the ACL and the Corporations Act 2001; numerous decisions of note; and the possible impact of the Harper Review."--publisher website

Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

Protecting the most vulnerable in consumer credit transactions

There are two key ways in which the Australian Uniform Consumer Credit Code seeks to protect consumers in relation to consumer credit transactions. The first is by means of disclosure regulation where information is required to be disclosed to the consumer before the credit contract is entered into and the second is by way of “safety net” provisions, where contracts can be varied or set aside in the event of hardship, a finding that the transaction was unjust, or a finding of unconscionable fees or charges. This article explores the limitations of both of these means of protection, particularly in the case of vulnerable, low-income consumers. In order to highlight the inadequacies of these forms of consumer protection and the need for regulatory reform, we draw on interviews conducted with 30 low-income consumers who had recently signed a credit contract, focusing on their understanding of information disclosed in the contract, as well as their responses to hypothetical unfair terms and their understanding of their rights, for example in the event of an unjust transaction. These interviews were conducted as part of a joint research project between Brotherhood of St Laurence and Griffith University’s Centre for Credit and Consumer Law, funded by Consumer Affairs Victoria.

National consumer credit laws, financial exclusion and interest rate caps : The case for diversity within a centralised framework

Australia is going through a major reform of consumer credit regulation, with the implementation of a proposal to transfer regulatory responsibility from the State and Territory Governments to the Commonwealth Government. While the broad policy approach is supported, the reform process has missed a significant opportunity to engage directly with issues of financial exclusion and with the potential role of regulation to reduce financial exclusion. The imposition of an interest rate cap can limit the impact of financial exclusion. However, the future of the existing interest rate caps is uncertain, given the diversity of approaches, and the heated debate that surrounds this issue. In the absence of support for regulatory initiatives to increase the availability of low cost, small loans, permitting regulatory diversity on this issue of interest rate caps, within an otherwise centralised regulatory framework., can minimise the impact of financial exclusion on consumers.

Consumer guarantees in Australia : putting an end to the blame game

The focus of this article is on the proposed consumer guarantees component of the Australian Consumer Law. The Productivity Commission (PC), in its review of Australia’s Consumer Policy Framework, noted that it had not ‘undertaken the detailed analysis necessary to reach a judgment on the adequacy or otherwise of the existing regulation in this area, or the merits of alternative models such as those adopted in countries such as New Zealand’. Accordingly, it recommended that: ‘The adequacy of existing legislation related to implied warranties and conditions should be examined as part of the development of the new national generic consumer law’.

Preventing consumer credit over-commitment and irresponsible lending in Australia

Mirroring the trends in other developed countries, levels of household debt in Australia have risen markedly in recent years. As one example, the total amount lent by banks to individuals has risen from $175.5 billion in August 1995 to $590.5 billion in August 2005.1 Consumer groups an~ media commentators here have long raised concerns about the risks of increasing levels of household debt and over-commitment, linking these issues at least in part to irresponsible lending practices. And more recently, the Reserve Bank Governor has also expressed concerns about the ability 'of some households to manage if personal or economic circumstances change.2

Respecting contractual intentions : balancing consumer expectations with the sanctity of contract in the context of standard form insurance contracts

It is the purpose of this article to examine the means curently available to judges to achieve a workable balance between providing appropriate consumer protection to signatories of standard form contractors while still retaining adequate respect for the sanctity of contract, and, based on this analysis, to determine whether a significantly greater scope of contract (re)construction is likely to become the norm in most common law jurisdictions in the coming decades.

Standardisation and patent ambush : potential liability under Australian competition law

This article examines the problem of patent ambush in standard setting, where patent owners are sometimes able to capture industry standards in order to secure monopoly power and windfall profits. Because standardisation generally introduces high switching costs, patent ambush can impose significant costs on downstream manufacturers and consumers and drastically reduce the efficiency gains of standardisation.This article considers how Australian competition law is likely to apply to patent ambush both in the development of a standard (through misrepresenting the existence of an essential patent) and after a standard is implemented (through refusing to license an essential patented technology either at all or on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms). This article suggests that non-disclosure of patent interests is unlikely to restrained by Part IV of the Trade Practices Act (TPA), and refusals to license are only likely to be restrained if the refusal involves leveraging or exclusive dealing. By contrast, Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) which seek to limit this behaviour through private ordering may face considerable scrutiny under the new cartel provisions of the TPA. This article concludes that SSOs may be best advised to implement administrative measures to prevent patent hold-up, such as reviewing which patents are essential for the implementation of a standard, asking patent holders to make their licence conditions public to promote transparency, and establishing forums where patent licensees can complain about licence terms that they consider to be unreasonable or discriminatory. Additionally, the ACCC may play a role in authorising SSO policies that could otherwise breach the new cartel provisions, but which have the practical effect of promoting competition in the standards setting environment.