Research Paper on:
Section LII of the Australian Trade Practices Act

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
not want. What happens when companies do not live up to their advertising? In many cases, consumers have little recourse, particularly if there are really no monetary damages. In Australia,  there is legislation that tries to give consumers an edge. However, how the law played out in terms of an attack on McDonalds has become controversial. Which law did McDonalds  in? Section 82 of the Australian Trade Practices Act of 1974 allows a party to enter a contract, who has suffered loss or damage due to misleading or deceptive  conduct pertinent to the meaning of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, in order to allow proceedings for the recovery of the particular loss or damage (Baker, 1996). Indeed,  Section 52 of the TPA in Australia has been troublesome to many companies, and not just McDonalds. It has allowed individuals and businesses to recuperate losses in certain situations. It  further provides an avenue of recourse for angry consumers who do not know how else to vent their anger. Section 52 of the TPA is broad in scope,  prohibiting a corporation in any commercial transaction from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct ("Accounting," 1997). The liability that it creates is civil and damages, or even  an injunction, are considered to be remedies (1997). The time limit for pursuing an action is three years (1997). In respect to Section 52 of the Act, it allows for  a true and fair override as well as to ensure that Section 52 embraces a larger scope as it relates to Corporate Law (1997). In particular, a point made had  been to ensure that Section 52 does not apply to financial reporting as well as matters of public reporting, and the group did believe that this is the case (1997).