Need the assignment of 1200 words. this is the max strength. CASE STUDY Students are required to read a decision of the High Court of Australia and then report on the “ratio” for that decision by answering specific questions. The length is to be no more than 1200 words. The case for study The case is AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v TPG INTERNET PTY LTD which was decided by the High Court in December 2013 • A PDF of the High Court’s judgment has been loaded separately in this topic box. • The first step is for students to read the judgment (which is quite long, so start early) carefully. • The questions for response will be uploaded later in the week. Extra guidance for students reading the judgment To avoid confusion about the roles played by the various courts which heard this dispute I provide the following short summary of the sequence of court hearings • The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) brought proceedings against internet provider TPG because of an advertising campaign for internet services TPG had been conducting. • Initially, the proceedings were heard by one judge, who is referred to in the High Court judgment as the “primary judge". ACCC was largely successful against TPG in those proceedings. • TPG, having lost the case before the primary judge, appealed to three judges, referred to in the High Court judgment as the “Full Court". The Full Court largely disagreed with the conclusions of the primary judge and set aside his decision. In effect, TPG won its appeal to the Full Court. • This left ACCC as the loser. It appealed to the High Court, which disagreed with the conclusions of the Full Court in favour of TPG and largely reinstated the decision made by the primary judge in favour of ACCC. The judgment you are reading, and to which the case study questions will relate, is the judgment of the High Court only. However, to enable the ratio of its decision to be understood, the High Court includes in its judgment summaries of the reasons which the primary judge and the Full Court previously gave in coming to their respective (and contradictory) decisions. The questions in the case study The questions will require student to express its understanding of what the courts determined. Further instruction about how to present answers will be given with the questions. BUS 101 – INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW – trimester 1 of 2016 ASSIGNMENT - CASE STUDY The questions in this assignment 1 The questions you are required to answer are designed to enable you to express your own understanding of what the three courts separately determined. However, this is not a cut and paste exercise. Although you are permitted to quote briefly (one or two short sentences) it is not possible to answer the questions simply by locating the relevant paragraphs in the judgment and copying them into your answer. (ONE person previous trimester resorted to this technique and was awarded 2/20; as a result all the members of the group failed the subject.) 2 Therefore, you must express your answer in your own words and to enable the tutors marking the assignments to be sure that you have done this you should state, in brackets at the end of your answers to each question, the paragraph numbers from the judgment you have referred to when preparing your answer. 3 While it is not compulsory, I encourage you to express answers to each question in either numbered or bullet point form rather than long paragraphs. This means that students whose English writing ability is not good should not be disadvantaged. 4 You must clearly identify, by a numbered sub-heading (ie, Question 1, Question 2 etc), the question you are answering but do not copy the question into your answer because that will cause a false “high similarity” score in Turnitin 5 Word limit is about 1200 words. The questions to be answered Your report will be marked out of a total of 20. The marks available for each separate question are stated in square brackets 1 Briefly describe the content of TPG’s advertising which ACCC considered to be defective [3 marks] 2 Which two statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG’s advertising contravened and what was it about the advertisements which contravened those provisions [4 marks] 3 What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge about the following aspects of the advertising [5 marks total made up as shown] • bundling [2 marks] • the set-up fee [2 marks] • single price [1 mark] 4 In what two ways did the Full Court take a different approach from that of the primary judge in deciding whether the TPG advertising was misleading? [2 marks] 5 The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the Full Court was not correct. For what two reasons did the High Court come to this conclusion? [2 marks] 6 The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a precedent the ratio in a case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (“Puxu”). The High Court said that the Full Court wrongly applied the principle in Puxu and gave three reasons for this. Briefly explain any two of the reasons the High Court thought the Puxu case was different from the TPG advertising and so should not have been used by the Full Court as a precedent. [2 marks] 7 If you were employed in the marketing section of an internet service provider or a fitness centre which was about to launch an advertising campaign promoting an attractive “plan” for membership in which there were several “parts” (costs and benefits) to be taken into account by potential customers, what advice would you give about the form the advertising should take, based on your understanding of the High Court’s ruling in ACCC v TPG? [2 marks]