Sentences with phrase «of unconscionable conduct»

provisions that make the dealing void if it is the pro duct of unconscionable conduct, duress, fraud or undue influ ence.

In legal terms, a signature can be challenged for a number of reasons, including that the signature is a forgery, or that, although not a forgery, the signature was obtained as a result of unconscionable conduct by a party to a transaction, fraud instigated by a third party, or undue influence exerted by a third party.

The court case we've run is alleging breaches of the responsible lending obligations, as well as some instances of unconscionable conduct in relation to a series of loans that were given to consumers for the purchase of motor vehicles.

«This is a significant decision for the ACCC as it provides important clarity regarding the scope and operation of the unconscionable conduct provisions in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL),» ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

Competition policy (SME focus; need for equity; treat SMEs as «consumers» when dealing with larger businesses - extend unfair terms contracts to small business; need «legal precedents or statutory definitions» as part of unconscionable conduct framework); competition laws (focus on unfair terms and unconscionable behaviour; mention of MMP but not in context of s 46; access - call for broader access; price signalling (not clear)-RRB-; administration

The ACCC is examining the latest milk price cuts from Fonterra and Murray Goulburn to consider whether the changes «involved misleading conduct or whether there are elements of unconscionable conduct».

Mr Morrice said the code was put together because the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was investigating allegations of unconscionable conduct by the chains.

«The ACCC will consider whether the changes have involved misleading conduct or whether there are elements of unconscionable conduct,» he said.

In early 2013, ACCC Chairman Rod Sims encouraged suppliers for Coles and Woolworths to bring forward evidence of unconscionable conduct.

Provides practical tips for businesses to minimise the risk of becoming a victim of unconscionable conduct or to avoid engaging in such conduct towards other businesses or consumers.

Complaints about the major supermarkets from their suppliers have slid since Coles admitted in court to 15 instances of unconscionable conduct against eight suppliers.

In December, Coles agreed to pay $ 10 million in penalties and to review contracts with suppliers after admitting to 15 instances of unconscionable conduct against eight suppliers.

Indeed this is one of the first findings of unconscionable conduct in a business - to - business context under the Australian Consumer Law.

The case, brought by law form Levitt Robinson, accuses Aveo of unconscionable conduct and engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Most prominently, the ACCC instituted Federal Court proceedings against Coles, in which findings of unconscionable conduct towards some suppliers were made (see below for more details).

Not exact matches

s. 20 — Prohibition against unconscionable conduct s. 21 — Unconscionable conduct in connection with goods or services s. 22 — Matters the court may have regard to for the purposesunconscionable conduct s. 21 — Unconscionable conduct in connection with goods or services s. 22 — Matters the court may have regard to for the purposesUnconscionable conduct in connection with goods or services s. 22 — Matters the court may have regard to for the purposes of section 21

If the court determines that unconscionable conduct has occurred, a variety of remedies may be ordered including:

The Court declared that Coles engaged in unconscionable conduct in the implementation of its Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) program by making threats of the following consequences if suppliers declined to pay the ARC rebate:

Against this backdrop, the company faces a class action, is being investigated by ASIC and the competition regulator ACCC has taken legal action in the Federal Court, alleging unconscionable conduct and misleading farmers in relation to forecasting a milk price of $ 6.05 when it allegedly knew dairy commodity prices were falling globally.

The ACCC will take these comments into account in its consideration of future cases on unconscionable conduct, including in the supermarket sector,» Sims said.

«Much more important is the magnitude of the penalties imposed and the recognition by the Court that Coles» conduct in its dealings with suppliers was unconscionable and in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

In a speech to the COSBOA National Small Business Summit in Melbourne yesterday, ACCC Chairman, Rod Sims, reiterated that the ACCC was «looking at concerns raised about the way in which the major supermarket chains deal with their suppliers» and noted that they related to the potential for unconscionable conduct and «concerns over the misuse of market power, particularly in relation to private label products.»

Speaking to the Law Institute of Victoria, ACCC Chairman Rod Sims discussed unconscionable conduct and misuse of market power, noting again that the misuse of market power provisions need clarification: «The ACCC now believes that it is time to resolve the unanswered questions surrounding section 46.

The ACCC have insisted that, within their powers, they are investigating the conduct for possible contraventions of misuse of market power or unconscionable conduct breaches - Graeme Samuel also noted that their investigation would be rigorous and independent, something neither the media nor Senate can claim.

See also Lucy Barbour, «Competition watchdog ACCC head Rod Simms (sic) denies claims an «effects test» would be «economically dangerous» (ABC Rural, 18 August 2014), in which the ACCC Chairman defends the ACCC's proposed effects test (and is also reported as saying that the current case against Coles was brought under the unconscionable conduct provisions rather than under s 46 because the misuse of market power prohibitions is a law that exists only between competitors...)

In a directions hearing this morning Justice Gordon has criticised the ACCC for lack of focus in its unconscionable conduct claims against Coles.

It recommends that legislation be introduced giving the Trade Practices Commission the ability to bring proceedings on behalf of a person who has a right of action at common law arising from the unconscionable conduct of another.

Because it is difficult to prescribe such minimum standards, the law prohibits unconscionable conduct, leaving it to the courts to determine in a given case whether the conduct fails to conform to the dictates of good conscience.

After briefly outlining the history of statutory unconscionable conduct provisions, the Panel reiterated that the concern of competition laws was to protect competition and not competitors and that this requires balancing «preventing anti-competitive behaviour that undermines competition with not inhibiting behaviour that is part of normal vigorous competition».

Both Coles and Woolworths are under scrutiny from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which is investigating allegations of misuse of market power and unconscionable conduct from about 50 grocery suppliers.

A finding of misleading or unconscionable conduct by the ACCC could expose Fonterra and Murray Goulburn to fines of up to $ 1.1 million.

Unconscionable conduct is assessed by reference to the particular circumstances in which the conduct occurs and often (but not always) includes a pattern of behaviour which taken together constitutes unconscionability.

They were also to examine the scope of s 46 (market dominance) and the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Act

In September, the parties, along with the National Farmers Federation (NFF) began talks to agree the voluntary code as a means of addressing growing concern about unconscionable conduct in the supermarkets, which are alleged to be misusing market power in the sector.

They also raised issues including divestiture, exclusive dealing (s47), powers to obtain information, documents and evidence (s155) and the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), and whether there are barriers to the emergence of major Australian agribusiness companies («national champions») of global scale for exporting to international markets.

They also raised other issues including divestiture, exclusive dealing (s47), powers to obtain information, documents and evidence (s155), the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA), and whether there are barriers to the emergence of major Australian agribusiness companies («national champions») of global scale for exporting to international markets.

The unconscionable conduct amendments are central to the implementation of uniform consumer laws throughout Australia.

Finally came the news that Australia's competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), will investigate Coles and Woolworths for alleged «unconscionable conduct» in the form of bullying tactics against food and grocery suppliers over prices and supply contracts.

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

Strengthen CCA to «outlaw predatory conduct that has negative effects on competition, value chain suppliers and ultimately consumers» (p 1); MMP (amend s 46 to outlaw predatory conduct), unconscionable conduct (needs to be strengthened), unfair terms (extend to business and further guidance), collective bargaining (claims ineffective; wants collective boycott option), Code of Conduct (wants mandatory code).

Supports NFF submission and identifies 10 priority areas: Unconscionable conduct, Misuse of market power (effects test), Unfair contract terms (extension to small business), Collective bargaining (inc raising threshold for primary production bargaining), Codes of conduct, Statutory duty of good faith, Powers of the ACCC (price monitoring, divestiture powers), Access, Protection from agri - terrorism, Establishing a Perishable Goods Commissioner

«Have your say» Apply ACL (stet) to small business in relation to unilateral conduct, MMP, unfair and unconscionable conduct, third line forcing [no further explanation of how law does not currently apply to small business or why extension needed]

Alcohol distribution (concern about «duopoly» pricing), lease arrangements (landlord power), unconscionable conduct (wants clear definition), review websites (wants code of conduct), ACCC (increase capacity to investigate re: unconscionable conduct; improve customer - service focus of ACCC when responding to small business)

Also notes opposition to introduction of statutory unconscionable conduct provisions because they focus on protection of individual competitors rather than promotion of competition.

Changes to competition laws (milk wars discussion and recommendations relating to MMP (introduce effects test), predatory pricing (recommend Minister direct ACCC to investigate Coles for breach of s 46 relating to predatory pricing), unconscionable conduct (suggest it be defined), statutory duty of good faith, unfair contract terms (seeks «recognition of the competitive disadvantage faced by farmers» and extension of unfair contract terms protection to small business), collective bargaining (seeks relaxation of public interest test for boycott approvals in agriculture markets, increase «ability for peak bodies to commence and progress collective bargaining and boycott applications» on behalf of members - and further dairy specific recommendations, ACCC divestiture power (wants ACCC to have similar divestiture powers to Comp Commission in UK - «simpler process of divestiture», ACCC monitoring powers (wants Minister to direct ACCC to use price monitoring powers to «monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of drinking milk») and mandatory code of conduct (wants mandatory code and «Ombudsman with teeth to ensure compliance»)-RRB-.

Unconscionable conduct (s 22 to be amended to include «price» within list of matters court can consider when determining whether conduct unconscionable); unfair contract terms (expand to B2B contracts and make it «possible for term that «sets the upfront price payable» to be found to be Unconscionable conduct (s 22 to be amended to include «price» within list of matters court can consider when determining whether conduct unconscionable); unfair contract terms (expand to B2B contracts and make it «possible for term that «sets the upfront price payable» to be found to be unconscionable); unfair contract terms (expand to B2B contracts and make it «possible for term that «sets the upfront price payable» to be found to be unfair»)

«The ACCC alleges that Coles used undue pressure and unfair tactics in negotiating with suppliers, provided misleading information and took advantage of its superior bargaining position, so that its overall conduct was in all the circumstances unconscionable.

«The ACCC will continue to take enforcement action if it considers that companies have engaged in unconscionable conduct, particularly in cases involving vulnerable consumers and where there have been other breaches of consumer protection provisions of the ACL.»

The ACCC alleges that Coles has engaged in unconscionable conduct towards 200 of its smaller suppliers, in breach of the ACL by, among other things:

The Full Federal Court set aside the judgment of Justice Jessup and made declarations that Lux had engaged in unconscionable conduct in relation to the sale of vacuum cleaners to three elderly consumers in their homes.