Legal Problem Sadie is the Manager of Outdoor Organic Pork Pty Ltd (OOP). OOP is a supplier of pork to Adelaide supermarkets and smallgoods stores. This family business prides itself on attaining certified free-range conditions for their pigs and the fact that their pork is certified organic. OOP is compliant with all relevant Industry Codes to achieve these certifications. Sadie is outranged about the conduct of a competitor pork farmer and supplier - Pork of Distinction Pty Ltd (POD). POD is a fairly large Queensland company which also supplies pork to various supermarkets in Adelaide. POD pork products have the following statements printed on their packaging: 'Taste the Difference-No Hormones added to our Superior Pigs' and 'The Tastiest Pork Our Country Has to Offer'. All packaging includes the below animated drawing of a smiling pink pig. In the speech bubble, the following statement is made: "Spending our days in the great outdoors makes Pork of Distinction the superior choice!"

Sadie has learnt that POD only allow their pigs to move about on Saturdays and Sundays. This does not meet Industry Code requirements for free-range conditions. Further, Sadie has also come to know that POD pork products are not processed free from synthetic chemicals - this is a key criterion for being certified organic. She is very concerned that OOP are placed

at a competitive disadvantage in the market by the various representations made by POD. She informs POD that they are in breach of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and there will be consequences under the law. Q - Advise whether OOP has a legitimate claim against POD under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Use IRAC method taught in class for your writing answer. Hint - need NOT to look up/research any Industry Codes. Simply accept the information in the scenario as fact.

Q- are these rules related to this case study????

• a 'person' includes businesses as well as individuals: s 2 C Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth); s14(a) Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA). Element 1 of s 18.
• 'engage in conduct' includes doing or refusing to do an act, representations and silence: s2(2) ACL. Element 2 of s 18.
• 'trade or commerce' includes business or professional activity carried on within Australia or between Australia and other places: s 2(1) ACL. The activity must be of an essentially trading or commercial nature: Concrete Constructions v Nelson. Element 3 of s 18.
• 'misleading or deceptive' - leading someone into error. Parkdale Custom Buil Furniture Case (more than confusion). Objective test applied to determine whether misleading or deceptive conduct has actually occurred: Taco Bell Case. Element 4 of s 18.
• Representations deemed to be 'puff' will not be misleading or deceptive: Procter & Gamble v Energizer. (puff exaggerated statement of opinion)
• Statements which are literally true but give a false overall impression may be misleading or deceptive: ACCC v Coles.
• An injunction can be issued under s 232 ACL
• Damages can be awarded for loss suffered under s236 ACL

Q- can you please explain those points???

- What do Parties Want?

- OOP's Argument.

- POD's Argument.

- Evaluation.