legal studies essay that i only just finished

[Shai Gar]

The Australian public had for over 70 years only the Sale of Goods Act (1896) which proffered little protection for the public because of the provision of exclusion that is allowed within the act. Following the Sales of Goods act, in 1974 came the Trade Practices Act which was more effective in that it disallows exclusions. This act covered both goods and services, and while this act was still flawed in many ways. It set the stage for the Fair Trading Act. The FTA is a detailed legislation that prohibits such acts as; misleading the public, irresponsible behaviour pertaining to customers’ complaints and harassment or coercing customers, but it’s flaw is in the fact that few Australians understand their rights as set out by the act. The legislation also has provisions for agencies to protect consumers and enforce the law, as well as changing restrictions on door to door sales.



Prohibitions are the norm in many acts of legislation, as in many cases they seek to protect the Australian public, in the FTA the nature of the prohibitions is no different. Some of the types of conducts that are specifically prohibited in the Act are as follows:



Misleading the public while carrying on a business
Misleading people in relation to employment
Taking advantage of a customers misfortune or naiveté to make a sale
Lying about goods or services
Offering gifts and prizes in connection with the sale of goods or services with no intention of providing them
Harassing or coercing customers in relation to the supply of goods or services.
The provisions of the act also requires that door to door salespeople and telemarketers restrict themselves to certain times and follow guidelines such as respecting peoples wishes and leaving or hanging up when asked to. There is also a cooling off period that people are required by law to take before they can accept money for a product or service, in which time the consumer is entitled to cancel the goods or services



Another provision of the Fair Trading Act is for the construction and maintenance of the Consumer Affairs Council which is charged with advising the minister on matters that affect the consumers, to make recommendations to the minister that are in the best interest of the consumers and to recommend ways that the CAC can be altered to work more efficiently. Although this is a Queensland state act it’s principles are used nationally and in Victoria its version was used to successfully defend against Telstra in the case of Bernard Robert Weekes vs Telstra Corporation.



The only flaw in the Act is not in its writing but rather in its implementation, the act is able to defend itself and the consumers but it has failed to properly announce to the general public its existence. A poll was taken in three regional supermarkets and its conclusion was that only 12% of the public questioned (randomly selected) knew about the act and only 3% of the people knew what it entailed. There are many ways in which the government might more effectively advertise the population of its consumer rights. One of these ways is a large sign in all shopping centres that might attract consumer attention. Another way is for the government to set aside a few advertising spots during prime time television for educating people of their rights. There are many ways that might effectively inform people of their rights and they should be used to lessen the naiveté of the public.

The Fair Trading Act of 1989 has been largely effective in curtailing Australian businesses from immoral acts such as misleading the public, not taking responsibility for faulty goods and services and harassing customers. Though there have been numerous attempts by the state government to advertise consumer rights to the public, recent polling of customers in local supermarkets confirms the lack of knowledge that the public has about their rights in this area. Therefore businesses can still afford to take these liberties at the expense of the customers due to the relative obscurity of the act amongst ordinary consumers.

[songbird36]

If you want my help you'll have to pay me at my going rate..

:lol:

[Claverhouse]

I think you're just stirring our passions with this post.

Are you planning a career on the bench or something ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

I have my doubts as to whether your passions *can* be stirred Claver...

[Shai Gar]

no i needed to download it at school. but how do you feel about the essay?

heh, what do you think?

[Shai Gar]

no desire to sit on the judges seat, or be a lawyer.

i want to be a lexicologist or anthropologist

[MasterMerk]

I do legal studies. Is this for the consumers module, or am I talking about something entirely different?

[songbird36]

*For* over 70 years *the* only *consumer rights protection offered [in Queensland? Australia?] was the* the Sale of Goods Act ("SGA") (1896) which proffered little protection for the public because of the *wide ranging* exclusions *in* the act.

*In 1974 the SGA was replaced with* the Trade Practices Act which was more effective in that it disallows exclusions. *The new *A*ct* covered both goods and services, and while this Act was still flawed in many ways [how?]. it set the stage for the Fair Trading Act.

The FTA is a detailed *piece of* legislation that prohibits such acts as; misleading the public, irresponsible behaviour pertaining to customers’ complaints and harassment or coercing customers, but its flaw is in the fact that few Australians understand their rights as set out by the *A*ct. The legislation also has provisions for agencies to protect consumers and enforce the law, as well as changing restrictions on door to door sales.



Prohibitions are the norm in many acts of legislation, as in many cases they seek to protect the Australian public, in the FTA the nature of the prohibitions is no different. Some of the types of conducts that are specifically prohibited in the Act are as follows:



Misleading the public while carrying on a business
Misleading people in relation to employment
Taking advantage of a customers misfortune or naiveté to make a sale
Lying about goods or services
Offering gifts and prizes in connection with the sale of goods or services with no intention of providing them
Harassing or coercing customers in relation to the supply of goods or services.
The provisions of the act also require [delete s] that door to door salespeople and telemarketers restrict themselves to certain times and follow guidelines such as respecting peoples wishes and leaving or hanging up when asked to. There is also a cooling off period that people are required by law to take before they can accept money for a product or service, in which time the consumer is entitled to cancel the goods or services



Another *key* provision of the Fair Trading Act is for the construction and maintenance of the Consumer Affairs Council which is charged with advising the minister on matters that affect the consumers, to make recommendations to the minister that are in the best interest of the consumers and to recommend ways that the CAC can be altered to work more efficiently. Although this is a Queensland state act its principles are used nationally and in Victoria its version was used to successfully defend against Telstra in the case of Bernard Robert Weekes vs Telstra Corporation.



The only flaw in the Act is not in its writing but rather in its implementation, [this is not a flaw in the Act but rather the degree to which it has been publicised - suggest you rephrase this]

[delete cumbersome sentence] A poll was taken in three regional supermarkets and its conclusion was that only 12% of the public questioned (randomly selected) knew about the act and only 3% of the people knew what it entailed. There are many ways in which the government might more effectively advertise the population of its consumer rights. One of these ways is a large sign in all shopping centres that might attract consumer attention. Another way is for the government to set aside a few advertising spots during prime time television for educating people of their rights. There are many ways that might effectively inform people of their rights and they should be used to lessen the naiveté of the public.

The Fair Trading Act of 1989 has been largely effective in curtailing Australian businesses from *unethical marketing practices* such as misleading the public, not taking responsibility for faulty goods and services and harassing customers.

Though there have been numerous attempts by the *S*tate government to advertise consumer rights to the public, recent polling of customers in local supermarkets confirms the lack of knowledge that the public has about their rights in this area. Therefore businesses can still afford to take these liberties at the expense of the customers due to the relative obscurity of the act amongst ordinary consumers.[/QUOTE]

[Shai Gar]

umm songbird? dont bother editing i handed it in shortly after posting my last post.

and this is about contract law MasterMerk, what grade of high school are you in?

[MasterMerk]

Year 12.

[songbird36]

Maybe I'll post the 15 page legal opinion I drafted today and get all of the forum's wise feedback on it..

:lol:

[Shai Gar]

smartarse.

and MasterMerk, what highschool do you go to down there? i am at Tannum Sands State High Scheol

anyway we are just finishing up our orals on contract law and next we get to choose what we want to do. how about you?

[MasterMerk]

I go to a crappy public school called Gorokan High. 95% populated by dumbasses.

We did the Crime unit end of last year, and we're finishing off Human Rights this term. We're probably going to do Family law or something for our optional course.

[Shai Gar]

i am doing human rights next term, could i have your essay from this term?

[songbird36]

My opinion today was on human rights/unlawful discrimination.

I'll sell it to you for a fair price.

[MasterMerk]

I haven't done an essay. Our Human Rights module is going to be assessed in the half-yearlies, which we haven't had yet.

[Shai Gar]

.... name the price

[Shai Gar]

okay cool might swing ideas past you cause we are doing the same thing

[songbird36]

.... name the price

My client will be paying around $1500.

[Shai Gar]

screw that, how about an apple

[songbird36]

I could set up an instalment plan for you..

[flan2dave]

Isn't there an intp forum member discount?

[songbird36]

Isn't there an intp forum member discount?

Only for certain members...

[flan2dave]

Oh, I don't think I want to read it anymore in that case (and I don't mean the price). :lol:

[songbird36]

Darn and I thought I was onto an easy money-maker...

[Shai Gar]

you could have been, but you are charging far far far too much, perhaps if you posted a few of your "opinions" on the forums so that we know whether or not the legal opinion actually matters to us, or we consider it to be valuable.

and then once you have done that a few times, you might consider charging 10 dollars NZD for each of these legal opinions.

[songbird36]

oooh..it cuts me to the bone...

[Shai Gar]

what does?

[Geoff]

My client will be paying around $1500.

Wow, what a bargain. I dont get out of bed for less than what would be in NZ $5000+. A 3 page opinion might be more than that. Something that took 15 pages, more likely $15,000.

But to be honest I dont write stuff that long usually, quality not quantity!

-Geoff

[Geoff]

*For* over 70 years *the* only *consumer rights protection offered [in Queensland? Australia?] was the* the Sale of Goods Act ("SGA") (1896) which proffered little protection for the public because of the *wide ranging* exclusions *in* the act.

*In 1974 the SGA was replaced with* the Trade Practices Act which was more effective in that it disallows exclusions. *The new *A*ct* covered both goods and services, and while this Act was still flawed in many ways [how?]. it set the stage for the Fair Trading Act.

The FTA is a detailed *piece of* legislation that prohibits such acts as; misleading the public, irresponsible behaviour pertaining to customers’ complaints and harassment or coercing customers, but its flaw is in the fact that few Australians understand their rights as set out by the *A*ct. The legislation also has provisions for agencies to protect consumers and enforce the law, as well as changing restrictions on door to door sales.



Prohibitions are the norm in many acts of legislation, as in many cases they seek to protect the Australian public, in the FTA the nature of the prohibitions is no different. Some of the types of conducts that are specifically prohibited in the Act are as follows:



Misleading the public while carrying on a business
Misleading people in relation to employment
Taking advantage of a customers misfortune or naiveté to make a sale
Lying about goods or services
Offering gifts and prizes in connection with the sale of goods or services with no intention of providing them
Harassing or coercing customers in relation to the supply of goods or services.
The provisions of the act also require [delete s] that door to door salespeople and telemarketers restrict themselves to certain times and follow guidelines such as respecting peoples wishes and leaving or hanging up when asked to. There is also a cooling off period that people are required by law to take before they can accept money for a product or service, in which time the consumer is entitled to cancel the goods or services



Another *key* provision of the Fair Trading Act is for the construction and maintenance of the Consumer Affairs Council which is charged with advising the minister on matters that affect the consumers, to make recommendations to the minister that are in the best interest of the consumers and to recommend ways that the CAC can be altered to work more efficiently. Although this is a Queensland state act its principles are used nationally and in Victoria its version was used to successfully defend against Telstra in the case of Bernard Robert Weekes vs Telstra Corporation.



The only flaw in the Act is not in its writing but rather in its implementation, [this is not a flaw in the Act but rather the degree to which it has been publicised - suggest you rephrase this]

[delete cumbersome sentence] A poll was taken in three regional supermarkets and its conclusion was that only 12% of the public questioned (randomly selected) knew about the act and only 3% of the people knew what it entailed. There are many ways in which the government might more effectively advertise the population of its consumer rights. One of these ways is a large sign in all shopping centres that might attract consumer attention. Another way is for the government to set aside a few advertising spots during prime time television for educating people of their rights. There are many ways that might effectively inform people of their rights and they should be used to lessen the naiveté of the public.

The Fair Trading Act of 1989 has been largely effective in curtailing Australian businesses from *unethical marketing practices* such as misleading the public, not taking responsibility for faulty goods and services and harassing customers.

Though there have been numerous attempts by the *S*tate government to advertise consumer rights to the public, recent polling of customers in local supermarkets confirms the lack of knowledge that the public has about their rights in this area. Therefore businesses can still afford to take these liberties at the expense of the customers due to the relative obscurity of the act amongst ordinary consumers.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for making an effort to bring the English of Shai Gar up to speed! The content of the essay was indeed not bad, but it needed some severe work to bring it up to an opinion standard. I guess that is the joy of learning, it gives you the opportunity to learn this stuff in a safe environment. If only some of my staff learned this stuff before they arrived, too!

Oh, and something to bear in mind is the difference between the passive voice, which is good for a legal opinion, and the active voice which may be better for a punchier discursive essay (or indeed for writing to a real person - eg a client!).

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

okay okay, perhaps my first drafts are not as godlike as i believe.
damn you and your "truth"

[Geoff]

okay okay, perhaps my first drafts are not as godlike as i believe.
damn you and your "truth"

Ahh, no it was an OK first draft - particularly given your lack of experience in this area.

SB and I have spent many years writing opinions, it is something you learn with experience (and in the early years with people spending a lot of time writing on your opinions in red pen).

Now I've got to the stage where I do the correcting with the red pen, it is so much more satisfying.... :laser:

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

okeys.

so you are a law professor?

[Geoff]

okeys.

so you are a law professor?

Nah, I am in the real world. I work as a chartered tax adviser, and as a result much of my time is spent interpreting, commenting on and writing opinions on tax law. And reviewing the work and opinions of others (both within my firm and from external lawyers).

Not theory, application. Real money, real problems.

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

i like that, always more willing to listen to business men over business professors.
if the professors knew so much wouldnt they be earning shitloads?

[songbird36]

okay okay, perhaps my first drafts are not as godlike as i believe.
damn you and your "truth"

It was OK. My issues were more with phraseology than anything else. You had tried to analyse the effect of the legislation, so it was not purely descriptive, which was a good start.

[Geoff]

It was OK. My issues were more with phraseology than anything else. You had tried to analyse the effect of the legislation, so it was not purely descriptive, which was a good start.

Ahh yeah, although an INTP that just described the detail would be a bit of a disappointment. We expect much more of you Shai Gar :)

-Geoff

[Shai Gar]

i went over the word limit as it was. plus that draft was done in only 5 hours, with about 3.5 of those hours taken up in procrastination. and Geoff, i dont know much of the detail, sure i printed out the legislation but i got bored and started reading churchills history of the english speaking peoples volume 3.

and it isnt really fair to say that it isnt my area of expertise, before this year i had only seen a small amount of law and i mean miniscule.

and my phrases i am fond of, but i like yours better SB. thanks