新西兰代写：澳大利亚消费者法律的分析和研究
根据澳大利亚消费者法律,不公平做法师,提到产品的消费者必须提供可接受的质量,这是公司的责任,以确保良好的消费者提供相同的质量的商品展示给消费者。现在如果任何公司都不履行担保，那么根据ACL的规定，货物的供应商将不得不纠正错误，以便遵守担保。这是第259(2)(a)条下的一项规定，当消费者要求货物供应商对保函所涵盖的故障进行补救时，根据第259(1)(b)条，供应商必须完全遵守所提供的此类保函。根据第261(c)条，他们应以相同的类型替换货物，或根据第(d)条，他们可能必须退还消费者为该货物支付的钱或与购买时对价相等的金额。根据第263节(4)选举或使返回的选择消费品和接收钱的消费者也可以选择接受同等价值的考虑他/她提供在采购商品或选择可以更换不合格的商品。
新西兰代写 ：澳大利亚消费者法律的分析和研究
根据第29(1)(i)条，为客户提供的差价必须是诚实的，而且不得是误导客户的陈述。
现在，BLT贴出了一个牌子，上面写着他们不允许退还那些打折出售的商品，而且这些商品只能被替换。是否项目或销售,这是供应商的要求BLT确保出售物品的质量好,消费者并不认为他们是质量好或者是相似的价值示范段BLT他们看到,然后他们治疗的保证下,他们可以选择退款或更换。现在，BLT不能限制消费者的选择。他们应该把自己的标志改为阅读，消费者可以选择更换或退款。此外，根据第29(1)(i)条，降价不应被用作理由，暗示客户不能指望退款，那么客户就不能获得真正的销售利益，而这样的报价充其量只能被视为广告诱饵或误导陈述。
在这种情况下销售点的标志必须修改，它应该修改包括退款给消费者，只有这样它才会符合澳大利亚消费者法。
新西兰代写 ：澳大利亚消费者法律的分析和研究
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.
新西兰代写 ：澳大利亚消费者法律的分析和研究
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.
