Question

Carlos went to a fish shop and asked for 1 kilo of two fresh prawns for dinner. The fish shop owner explained that he had no fresh prawns but that he had some boiled ones, which he sold to Carlos. It turned out that the prawns weren’t fresh and Carlos, after eating them, became seriously ill. Required: ⦁ Does Carlos have any action open to him against the fish shop under the Australian Consumer Law? You must specify which sections of the ACL apply to this case. ANSWER: ⦁ What does Carlos need to prove to succeed in claiming against the fish shop based on Australian Consumer Law? ANSWER:

Answer 1

(1)

Causes of action in respect of food poisoning may arise in negligence, in contract, or under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which is contained in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA). The fish Carlos got had a safety defect, as the prawns he got were not fresh and it was not safe to sell those and eat them. The fish shop sold him and after eating he became seriously ill which comes under for the purpose of the ACL. Therefore, the main areas of contention in such claims are typically whether the food product was contaminated and whether this caused the claimant’s injuries or injuries.

(2)

The main area of contention in food poisoning claims tends to be causation, which largely turns on issues of fact based on circumstantial evidence. It is therefore necessary to consider the standard of proof in civil proceedings as it applies to circumstantial evidence.

The main issue in dispute is the source of the food poisoning. Carlos ate prawns and may be those prawns had bacteria and that is the factor which made him ill. Now, the thing they can check for is the fish was eaten by Carlos only or by any other family member or friend as well. If they did eat that, did they fell sick or in what condition they are in. Another thing which need to be checked is what about the other customer who got those boiled prawns from the same fisherman. Did that hit them as well or any other side effects. The other thing matter is what did Carlos eat before and after eating the boiled prawns because some of the other things might be good enough to make him sick. The whole day for Carlos needed to be assessed, if some activity was done wrong by him. The hygienist should check the food quality and cleanliness of the shop. It is needed to be checked if there was any mishandling during the sale of the prawns. The doctor report can also help them to find out what are the factors for his sickness, is that fish only or other things as well.

Therefore, Carlos can go in the court with all these evidences and can sue the fish shop. If The court finds that KFC had contravened the defective goods and implied warranty sections of the TPA. The court also found the fisherman liable in negligence on the basis that its employees had failed to comply with its food standards, for which the fish shop was vicariously liable.

PLEASE HELP ME BY LIKING THIS ANSWER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LIKE!