Stanley v MonashElectricals- ACL Consumer Guarantees for Services

Stanley (an IT student at Monash College) approached Jack, an experienced computer technician atMonashElectricalsPty Ltdin Melbourne toreplace andupgrade his laptop.

He carefully explained his requirements which included:

• Repairing the keyboard, which is defective after accidentally pouring bubble tea
• Repairing the screen, which was scratched by his pet cat
• Upgrading the RAM and video card
• Installing an antivirus to protect his work

Jack told Stanley they can repair his laptop and install the antivirus program. Before Jack begins the repair, he advised Stanley to carefully read the exemption clause on the notice board displayed above the counterstating:

Stanley, not paying attention, ignored the notice board and gave his laptop to be repaired and paid $3,000 in total.

A week later after the repairs and upgrades were completed, Stanley found a number of issues with the laptop. Although the keyboard and screen were fine, the laptop was slower and would often crash. He later discovered the RAM installed was incompatible with his laptop, and the video card was an older and inferior version than his previous video card!

Stanley argues that Monash Electrical has breachedhis consumer guaranteesand is therefore entitled to a refund.Jack however stated the store does not give refunds and pointed at the notice board on the counter.

Required

Advise Stanley whether Monash Electrical Pty Ltdis entitled to a remedyfor breach oftheSTATUTORY GUARANTEES UNDER THE ACL?

Address the following4issues in advising Stanley:

1. Does the ACL apply?
2. Is the person a consumer?
3. Which extra statutoryguarantee protects them?
4. Has the statutory guarantee been breached?

2.1Compare torelevantstatutory guarantee andthe facts

1. Is there an exemption clause?
2. Is it allowed under section s64?
3. If yes, do the words protect the party in breach?
4. What remedy is available?
5. Is the breach a major or minor failure?
6. Were thedamgesreasonably foreseeable?

ABC v SupraTV- ACL Consumer Guarantees for Goods

SupaTVsold anewtelevisionand home entertainment systemto the ABC Advertising Company for $30,000.The contract that ABC signed stated: "The buyer agrees the the seller's liability is limited to repair or replacement of the goods sold."ABC used the televisionand entertainment systemfor making presentations to its clients. Unfortunately, when ABC was presenting to one of its biggest clients, a fault in the television set caused it to explode damaging ABC's business premises and destroying ABC'senterainmentsystemwhich was attached to the television set. Fortunately, no one was injuredbut ABC had to purchase new equipment to finish the presentation. ABC wishes to seek damages for the property damage caused by the faulty televisionand the cost of a new replacementsystemthey purchased to finish the presentation.Total damages: $73,000.

Advise whetherABCis entitled to a remedyfor breach oftheSTATUTORY GUARANTEES UNDER THE ACL?

Consider the following4issues:

1. Does the ACL apply?
2. Is the person a consumer?
3. Which extra statutory guarantee protects them?
4. Has the statutory guarantee been breached?
5. Compare the relevantstatutory guarantee and the facts
6. Is there an exemption clause?
7. Is it allowed under section s64?
8. If yes, do the words protect the party in breach?
9. What remedy is available?
10. Is the breach a major or minor failure?
11. Were thedamagesreasonably foreseeable?

I need IRAC answers for questions above