美国代写被抓：对消费者欺骗性的利案例分析
乔纳斯可以根据《澳大利亚合同法》，根据《澳大利亚消费者法》第18条，寻求对其伤害的赔偿。《澳大利亚消费者法》之前是《2010年竞争和消费者法》附表2 (Cth)的一部分。澳大利亚合同法通常是根据普通法制定的，但为了保护消费者的利益，在现行法律中有所扩展。这里讨论的问题是误导和/或欺骗性行为。
美国代写被抓：对消费者欺骗性的利案例分析
如果乔纳斯能够证明卖方的行为当充电器卖给他误导或者卖方是欺骗性的,然后他就可以寻求补救措施根据年代18澳大利亚消费者法律“一个人不能在贸易或商业、参与行为误导或欺骗性的或可能误导或欺骗”(澳大利亚消费者法律,2016)。第二，根据过失侵权法，将充电器卖给乔纳斯的人对乔纳斯负有注意义务。因为通过让乔纳斯借或买充电器，他们知道他们是危险的。他们已经违反了注意义务，这意味着乔纳斯可以起诉卖充电器给他们的人。充电器的制造商对乔纳斯负有照顾的责任。
美国代写被抓：对消费者欺骗性的利案例分析
Compensation for injury under (a) contract law and/or (b) negligence law?
Jonas could seek compensation for his injury under Australian contract law, under the section 18 of the Australian Consumer law, which was previously part of schedule 2 of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Australian contract law is usually established under common law but is extended with statutes in current times for reasons of protecting the consumer. The issue addressed here is misleading and/or deceptive conduct.
美国代写被抓：对消费者欺骗性的利案例分析
If Jonas is able to prove that the actions of the seller when selling the charger to him was misleading or if the seller was deceptive, then he would be able to seek remedies under the s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law “A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive” (Australian Consumer Law, 2016). Secondly, under the tort law of negligence, the person who sold the charger to Jonas owes a duty of care to Jonas. Because by allowing Jonas to borrow or buy a charger, they know they are hazardous. They have breached that duty of care, which means Jonas can charge the person who sold the charger to them. The manufacturer of the charger holds the duty of care to Jonas.
