According to the Australian consumer law, under the unfair practices division, it is mentioned that goods to be provided to the consumer must be of acceptable quality and that it is the duty of the company to ensure that good provided to the consumer are of the same quality with the goods that are on display to the consumer. Now if the guarantee is not met by any company, then according to ACL, the supplier of the goods will have to remedy the failure so as to comply with a guarantee. This is a requirement under section 259(2)(a) where a consumer requires supplier of goods to remedy a failure that is covered by the guarantee and under the section 259(1)(b) the supplier has to show full compliance with such a guarantee provided. According to section 261(c) they ought to replace the goods with an identical type or according to section (d) they might have to refund the money paid by consumer for the goods or an amount equal ling the consideration in purchase. Under section 263 (4) the consumer elects or makes the choice to return the goods and receive money paid by the consumer or might elect to receive an amount in equal value to the consideration that he/she provided while purchasing the goods or could elect to have a replacement of the rejected goods.
The price differential offered as a benefit to the customer must be an honest one and must not be a misleading representation under s 29(1)(i).
Now BLT has put up a sign saying they are not allowing refund on those items that they have sold on sale and that they could only be replaced. Whether the items or on sale or not, it is the requirement of the supplier BLT to ensure sold item are of good quality and where the consumers do not perceive them to be off good quality or being similar in value to the demonstration piece they saw at BLT, then they are to be treated to a guarantee under which they can choose for refund or replacement. Now here BLT cannot constrain consumer choices. They should change their sign to read, consumer can choose replacement or refund. Also according to s 29(1)(i), the price slash must not be used as reason to imply that customer cannot expect a refund, then the customer does not get a true sales benefit, and such an offer at best can be viewed as an advertisement bait or a misleading representation.
The point of sale sign must be amended in this case, it should be amended to include refund to the consumer, only then it would be in accordance with the Australian Consumer law.