澳洲代写论文：澳大利亚消费者法适用的案例分析。澳大利亚消费者法(ACL)适用于主要是房地产经销商的卖方。澳大利亚消费者法第18节规定，一个人不得从事误导或欺骗的行为。它表明，参与销售的人员不得欺骗或误导客户。他们有报告所有信息的道德责任。Williams v Pisano案例NSWCA 177探讨了这一背景的范围。在接下来的内容中，澳洲代写论文专家将为同学们分析下澳大利亚消费者法适用的案例。
在Williams v Pisano  NSWCA 177案中，新南威尔士法院审理了上诉。在这一案例中，法院调查了一名私人住宅的卖主，该卖主承认对住宅质量进行了虚假陈述(托克利，2017年)。他们可以对误导澳大利亚消费者法中规定的欺骗行为的违约负责。最初，法院裁定，出售这块土地的卖主对本案负有责任，初审法官裁定，卖主应赔偿120万美元。威廉姆斯对此提起上诉，并声明卖方的代理不符合《贸易或商业法案》。由于威廉姆斯和丹德里斯是同时的违法者，他们不能被处以超过50%的罚款，而且主审法官在计算中犯了错误(tokley, 2017)。该案件被裁定，他们没有违反s18或s30的法律。这个案子在法定解释问题上开创了一个先例。
了解ACL的基本原理非常重要。他们把土地的买卖考虑在内。在某些情况下，两者都是。重要的是要了解，因为房地产交易商持有关键的市场洞察力，而房地产卖方是相对新手的房地产市场(艾伦，2017)。因此，在这些情况下，房地产交易商具有创造不公平合同条款的优势。重要的是，本文认识到美国消费者法是根据新的贸易惯例修正法案2010颁布的。(Castley, 2010)。因此，ACL在开发土地销售合同时适用于供应商。土地出售给个人自用的合同，视为消费者合同。个人使用也可以涉及职业(科里根和埃文斯，2017年)。然而，只要个人与地产商从事土地销售，该合同就应被制定为适用澳大利亚消费者法的消费者合同。因此，通过制定标准形式的消费者合同(Dervenis, 2013)，了解澳大利亚消费者法适用于房地产商和消费者之间的土地出售的方式，对于本文来说更加关键。该案件提供了法院处理未来案件的方式。
In the case of Williams v Pisano  NSWCA 177 the NSW court looked at the appeal. This was the case where the court looked at the vendor of a private home who admitted to have misrepresented the quality of home (Tokeley, 2017). They could be liable for the breach of misleading the deceptive conduct provided in the Australian Consumer law. Initially, it was ruled that Vendor who sold the plot was liable for the case and it was ruled by the trial judge that they were liable for $1.2 million. Williams appealed for the case and stated that the representation of the vendor was not under the trade or commerce act. Since Williams were a concurrent wrongdoer with Dandris, they cannot be fined over 50% and that the primary judge made an error in calculation (Tokeley, 2017). The case was ruled that they did not violate s18 or s30 of the law. This case set a precedent as to the issue of statutory construction. The position was considered to be different as the sale was done by the property development. For that particular condition, the vendor had made a misrepresentation which was a breach of the ACL.
It is important to know the basic tenets of the ACL. They factor in the matters of sales or purchase of the land. In some cases, either one is. It becomes important to understand that since the property dealers hold critical market insight and the seller of the property is relatively novice to the real estate market (Allen, 2017). Therefore, the property dealers in these cases have an advantage of creating unfair contract terms. It is important for this paper to recognize that the American Consumer Law was enacted under the new Trade Practices Amendment Act 2010. (Castley, 2010). Hence, the ACL became applicable to a vendor at the point of developing a contract for the sale of land. The contracts wherein a land is sold to the individuals for the personal use are regarded as a consumer contracts. The personal use can also involve occupation (Corrigan and Evans, 2017). However, as long as an individual is engaged in sale of a land with a property dealer, the contract is subject to be developed as a consumer contract which applies the Australian Consumer Law. Therefore, it is further critical for this paper to understand the manner in which Australian Consumer law applies to the sale of land between property dealer and consumer by developing a consumer contracts in the standard form (Dervenis, 2013). The case provides the ways in which the courts would approach the future case.