Monthly Archives: December 2014

First Case On New Personal Property Securities Law

FIRST CASE ON NEW PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES LAW The New South Wales Supreme Court handed down the first major decision in Australia, in 2013, on the new Personal Property Securities Act (“PPSA”). Although a NSW case, it involved a Queensland company. The dispute was about large pieces of personal property, caterpillar excavators, worth over $300,000. The case, Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd (“Maiden”) v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd (“QES”) [2013] NSWSC 852 confirms that registration on the PPSA Register will give priority to a claimant to secured property even against that property’s “true owner.” The Facts QES owned the excavators and  leased them to Maiden but QES failed to register their leases on the Personal Property Securities Register (“the PPS register”). Fast Financial Solutions Pty Ltd (“Fast”) provided finance to Maiden and required that it receive security over all its assets. Unlike QES, Fast registered their security interest on the PPS register. Maiden became insolvent and Fast appointed receivers....
Read more No comments share

Online Reviews – A Guide for Business. What you need to know.

Online consumer reviews are increasingly being relied upon by consumers as a low cost means of making more informed purchasing decisions. As long as the integrity of those reviews is ensured, this is a positive development.

Reviews may be written about a business’ goods or services or about a business or brand itself. Online reviews are written about online businesses or traditional bricks and mortar businesses. A fake review is one which does not reflect the genuinely held opinion of the author. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have produced a guideline on On-Line Reviews. This guideline is not a substitute for independent legal advice as it is intended to have general application. You should obtain professional advice from O'Shea Lawyers  if you have any specific questions or concerns by calling 3359 7967. To read the whole article please click on the link below. Online reviews-a guide for business and review platforms...
Read more No comments share

Harvey Norman franchisees pay for misleading consumers

The Federal Court has ordered four Harvey Norman franchisees to pay a total of $116,000 in penalties for making false or misleading  representations to customers about their consumer guarantee rights. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) awaiting judgment in proceedings against another six Harvey Norman franchisees for similar conduct, where the ACCC is seeking court orders including penalties, declarations, injunctions, corrective notices and compliance training. The Court found that each franchisee had made a number of false or misleading representations to consumers about their consumer guarantee rights. For instance, staff at the stores had told customers that: "No refunds or exchanges will be made for faulty goods unless notified within 14 days" and at another: "You can only take up your rights for faulty goods with the manufacturer." At one store receipts were given to customers which said: "No responsibility taken for damaged goods if not notified within 24 hours of pick up or delivery." All of...
Read more No comments share