Assignment (Airlines issue)

Issue:

Whether Angelwings Airlines have breached any provision that comes under the Australian Consumer Law 2010?

Law:

Section 18 ACL

Section 236 ACL

Section 237 ACL

Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2013) 249 CLR 435

Houghton v Arms (2006)

ACL (Alpen v Richards, 2013)

Application:

In concerning this case, the issue that requires being determined that connected to the legal responsibility of Angelwings Airlines for the breach of Australian Consumer Law (ACL). In this period, it is also required to be seen what solutions, if any are accessible to Fabio and Greta. In the advertising of Angelwings Airlines, it was assured by the couple that the number of services is available to the travellers of economy classes. Through, the fact was that these services were not accessible to travellers of economy classes, but they were only providing these facilities for the passengers of the first class.

The ACL that is given in schedule 2 of consumer and competition Act, (CCA) involves every legal need as well as the remedies significant for persons and organization that is trading in the context of commerce or trade. The description of these needs that are provisions of the Act mostly involves one and all, for instance, a customer who purchases service or products or the individual who runs an organization providing services or goods for the person or to another industry. Under these situations, it is significant to be alert of the necessities of Australian Consumer Law and also the correct items that have been enforced by it. To trade with the appearance, the obligations of the Australian Consumer Law associated with deceptive and misleading behaviour have to be discovered and also the services that are accessible to the customers in case of such action.  

In concerning this situation, it has been presented in section 18, Australian Consumer Law which in perspective of commerce or trade, an individual must not be included in deceptive or misleading behaviour or the behaviours that may influence outcomes in deceiving or misleading other people. In these ways, necessities of the Australian, Consumer Law is associated with the response that takes place across different business ranges actions. Hence agreements of contractual, advertising and other industrial negotiations are enclosed by it. The importance of the terms, engaging in behaviour can also be introduced as refusing or doing to do some specific Act. In the same way, creating an illustration of something can be presented as behaviour under these necessities.

The the second problem which has to decide in this situation is to see the behaviour can introduce as deceptive or misleading? in Determining the issues if specific action can be presented as fraudulent or deceptive is a real question. Hence, it is required to be determined by considering the conditions of every case. As the terms likely to have is applied in section 18, the meaning of this section that the applicant is not needed to set up that the behaviour has in reality outcome of deceptive or misleading an individual. It's adequate if the response can be introduced as deceptive or misleading. Similarity, the practice in questions is also obtainable to fall under the necessities of section 18 in such action guide a person into inaccuracy. It is available to outcomes in a first association which shows among the behaviour and the mistake which has prepared by the person by depending on the deceptive or misleading conduct. In the loss of anything, in this case, it has been endured by a person due to the reality of relying on behaviour, individual also be permitted to recover compensation from the other parties.

In this concern, it is essential that the behaviour must be on purpose. In this problem arise previous to the court in Australian consumer and competition commission v/s Google Inc in 2013 249 CLR 435. According to this case, this was declared by the ACCC that the behaviour of Google Inc could be introduced as deceptive or misleading when it presented remunerated advertising on their searching engines which can regard as misleading.

The declaration concerning the future: In this declaration which has been made concerning potential can also be regarded as misleading the customers, under some particular situation. Though, this is not a contravention of necessities of the Act to build a forecast of conveying view concerning things which are departing to obtain a place in future, if the situation has completed concerning shows reality. Besides this, it may be considered as misleading if the truth is not real and if the individual making an illustration concerning future didn't have logical justification to hold that state of mind and make potential representative.

Silence as behaviour: There are some specific situations where the silences of a person can be measured as deceptive or misleading behaviour. Though, the primary key to deciding if silence can be treated as misleading is to observe if there is reasonable expectation according to that a specific method or impact is going to be released. Though, this is difficult to rely on silence for seeking relief under necessitates which have imposed on deceptive or misleading behaviour in this case of commercial transactions it is because doing require the parties to free information which can assist for another party. It is necessary to identify which bargain is a reality of modern humanity. If the behaviour term has been entering into willingly, this is providing by the universal behaviour principle law that the agreement among the party can be enforced legally. 

Temporary information: If any individual misleads by the knowledge passed away from the a primary source can be regarded as legal responsibility for the violation of section 18 however, when if they have generated endorsed or adopted the pieces of information. Regarding the collection nature as a full is going away to impact the estimation, involving the specific necessary information, the parties, and the reality if there were any provisions.

Liability: A person can sue and file a case against another individual. It is to be regarded if the behaviour of the other person or party was personally undertaken or if there were a third person and party or if it was undertaken against of another entity involves in the violation of the Act provisions. It is observed that a worker and has done a misleading illustration or if not the behaviour of that can be defined as misleading after that such work is going to be supposed legal responsibility Houghton v Arms (2006) as well as for the violation of the provision of ACL (Alpen v Richards, 2013).

Regarding this case, Angelwings claimed that in the company's advertisement lead to be misleading and fake. The couple believed on those claims and determined for travelling through the Airline. But they observed that the ad represented services which in the advertisement were only accessible with the passenger of the first class. It is also determined that the endorsement of these services were also convenient for the economy class traveller. Similarly, the seats were also not comfortable as represented in the advertisement as the large leather seats. Moreover, the food quality was not even so kind as described in the ad. On the another hand, the couple has experienced that they had to reach the airport through taxi. As concerned to this case, the ACL provides the remedies to Greta and Fabio for the violation of the provision that is accessible to them. The solutions are as follows:

Compensation: Section 237 grants power to the court for making the orders in opposition the contravening human being to compensate the person who has initiated the assert, whether the individual has suffered from any loss or injury every time going to experience it.

Damages: It is given under section 236 of the Australian Consumer Liability that states if any individual who has suffered injury or loss in the context of the violation of these services is acceptable under the law to recover the charges of the losses or harm. In regards to this, the act is needed to be undertaken by an enormous individual within the six years of suffering from injury or damage.

Sanction: Ending engine refers to the court order in which it is needed that an individual must avoid doing from doing anything.

Conclusion:

The conclusion in the current case, therefore, is that the Angelwings Airlines in this circumstance is involved in deceptive and misleading behaviour and the remedies are given to Fabio and Greta by the Australian Consumer Law for this sort of action that is easy to get to them. With the concern of Australian Consumer Law and Competition and Consumer Act 2010, it can be determined that Angelwings Airlines has conducted the concept of fake and misleading and advertisement when the company is marketing and promoting its goods or services in the marketplace. It is also likely that the court can command for compensating Fabio and Greta to Angelwings Airlines for representing false and misleading advertisement. The Australian Consumer Law and Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is applicable in this case.

Answer 2

Issue

Tax avoidance is the main issue in this case for which Denise is found involved in the illegal activities, like preparing a trust for avoiding/ minimizing her tax liabilities for her businesses from the misguidance of tax and trust accounting specialist Alex, under his certified accounting consulting practices. This issue comes from not paying the tax by Denise; as a result, the ATO orders her to pay back the tax that she avoided and a penalty of 50% alongside the tax amount. Another issue is the settlement of the claim amount ($1,00,000) demanded by Denise for her financial loss (due tax pay payment and 50% penalty of the tax amount) against Alex because of his negligence misstatement for creating a complicated situation to Denise (Plunkett, 2018).

Law

The Law on Negligent Misstatement and Civil Liability Act, 2003 (Qld) are two important laws or legislation that will fit appropriately to the particular case study and will provide an understanding of the case study in a legal manner. Negligence Misstatement is the representation of the facts, information, or advice incorrectly and carelessly that may create disadvantages or loss to a party from the misstatement by another party. This law is applied in the current case study for getting solution of the issue, like economic loss of Denise from the negligence misstatement or the misrepresentation of the advice by Alex. Furthermore, another law Civil Liability Law (Qld) 2003 and relevant sections (S36, S32G) will be also applied in the case study to find an appropriate solution from the violation of the legal rules or breach of duty by Alex(Cradduck, 2015).

Application

The application of both laws including the Law on Negligence Misstatement and Civil Liability Act (QLD), 2003 in the case study will provide a legal solution to recover from the issues faced. The application of the law on negligent misstatement/ misrepresentation in the given case study will resolve the problems of the misstatement/ misrepresentation of Alex. By applying this law, Denise will take the legal offence/ action in the form of settlement of a claim the amount for the compensation of the financial loss (from the imposing the tax a penalty by the ATO) that was only because of Alex’s wrong tax consulting advise to Denise.

The negligence misstatement is regarded as the information or advice that is provided by one party to another party honestly, but this is misleading or inappropriate carelessly, incorrectly, or casually in the legal term. Regarding this case study, the party who is (Alex) responsible for the negligence misstatement for the misrepresentation of wrong advise or consulting misguide to Denise in the illegal manner that caused a huge financial loss to Denise for his business from the tax frauds by breaching the rules of ATO’s taxation policy (Barker, 2015).

 The negligent misstatement occurs a legal action for any type of misrepresentation between the contracting parties (like Denise and Alex in the given case) that may be invoked. The person suffering from the economic loss from the misstatement (like Denise in the given case), can claim for the compensation against another party (like Alex, who is liable for the misstatement or found involved in the misrepresentation of the ideas/ advice). The legislation on negligence misstatement guides Denise for demanding the compensation amount of $1,00,000 by sending the notice through her lawyer that is correct or appropriate in the legal term (Nelson, 2018).

The legal action by Denise by suiting the case against Alex in the court of law at the time when Alex does not agree to pay the compensation amount by Alex, is also legally appropriate because Alex is only the person who misguided Denise, Rather he should have given appropriate tax consulting advice to Denise by advising him not to involve or think about avoiding or minimizing the tax liability for her personal profits because it is illegal and can create the penalty on him either through a huge financial loss or imprisonment in the victim of stealing income tax. Alex should advise Denise that she can open trust, but she should not avoid paying tax on the name of opening a trust. But, after knowing the effect of legal actions of violating the tax liabilities, Alex gave wrong advice to Denise; as a result, Denise had to suffer a huge financial loss for her own business(Maksymov and Nelson, 2016).

Another law, Civil Liability Act, 2003 (Qld) demonstrates the civil or legal liability of the business parties or others in the contract, for performing the legal duties by understanding the legal terms and conditions of this law in order to maintain the contractual relationship between the parties. The application of this law in the relevant/given case study will secure the business party (like Denise in the case) from the legal action or breach of duty to avoid the fraudulent practices or frauds in the business practices. This law comprises the chapters and relevant sections for different cases. Section 32 G and Section 36 are two relevant sections that define the liability of public, business parties, or other authorities.

The section 36 is based on the legal proceedings against the public authorities on the basis of breach of the statutory legislation or duty(Queensland Government, Civil Liability Act, 2003).

This section of the Civil Liability Act, 2003 (QLD) defines that the business owner (Denise) should understand the legal liability of reporting and paying the taxes by following the Taxation Legislation Policy of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). As per this section, Alex is also legally responsible for giving the right kind of tax consulting advice to Denise that is appropriate and legal and however, assisting her in supporting her business for avoiding from any legal disturbances. Rather, Alex did the opposite of this by giving the wrong advice to Denise that resulted in the economic loss to Denise’s business in her attempt to violation of taxation rules of ATO’s taxation policy. This section also states that this act of Denise will be considered as an act of omission of failure to pay the tax as per specified tax norms, policies, and rules of ATO taxation policy standards (Cradduck, 2015).

According to another section 32G of the Civil Liability Act, 2003, the liability for the contributory negligence is not affected. As per this section, it is specified that the plaintiff (Denise in the given case) is contributory under negligence because of the negligence misrepresentation or inappropriate/wrong advice by Alex to her for which she is negligent, as the court can exclude the proportion of loss ($1,00,000) imposed by the court for which she is negligent. Section 31 of this law defines the proportionate liability apportionable claims. As per this section, the plaintiff (Denise) is liable to demand the apportionable claims in the appropriate proportions of the compensation amount against Alex for his misrepresentation of the taxation consulting services to Denise that made her victim of violating the taxation policies by her wrongful act of tax avoidance in her attempt of minimizing tax liabilities (Chapple and Mui, 2015).

From the application of the Civil Liability Act, 2003, it can be stated that setting a trust structure is not illegal, but breaching/ violating the tax avoidance rules under the Federal Income Tax Assessment Act is illegal. Alex is also equally responsible for violating the Civil Liability Act, 2003 because he misguided Denise and helped her in promoting this illegal activity for the tax avoidance purpose. As per the legal findings of this act, Alex should have guided Denise to pay tax appropriately by submitting the tax report in the ATO Office and however, fulfilling all legal formalities by following the ATO’s tax structure. As a professional accountant and tax specialist, Alex should have given appropriate legal advice to Denise for following the taxes, not for avoiding the taxes (Allan, 2007).  

Conclusion

From the detailed understanding of the case study of Denise’s tax avoidance in the legal terms, it can be concluded that it is a legal liability of Denise to pay tax by following the taxation liability of his business for avoiding from any tax cheating or fraud in the sequence of saving the bad image/ reputation of her business.

The law of Negligent Misstatement finds appropriate in the case study for which Alex is responsible to misguide Denise to help her in preparing a trust by guiding for avoiding the tax liabilities or taxation legislation of the ATO. The law on negligence misstatement will assist Demise to recover from the economic loss (incurred from the tax payment with the additional surplus tax amount of penalty) by claiming for the compensation by Denise against Alex through sending a letter and then taking the case to the court.

The Legislation, Civil Liability Act, 2003 also fits in the case that reminds the legal/civil liabilities of both Denise (the business owners) and Alex (Denis’s trust and tax consultant) for working legally by following the Australian taxation policy. This law will also provide a legal solution to the issues faced in the case study either by the cancellation of the Certified Practices Accountant license of Alex along with imposing the tax penalty on Denise for their breach of Civil Liability Rules. 

travellers