Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 MARCH 2010

Australian Consumer Law: Unfair Contracts And The Challenges For Developers Ahead

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Explore more from Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

The Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 (ACL) was passed in the Senate on 17 March 2010. The ACL will commence on a date fixed by proclamation or the day after the date that is 6 months after Royal Assent (but commencement cannot be earlier than 1 July 2010). The Bill is currently awaiting Royal Assent.

AustraliaConsumer Protection
Matthew Derrick
Matthew Derrick
Peter Trevaskis
Peter Trevaskis
Author LinkedIn connections

Key points

  • The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) will apply to Developer sales to consumers.
  • Contract terms will be open to review against a test of unfairness. Unfair terms will be void.
  • The ACL will not generally apply to investment purchases and business to business sales are not regulated.
  • Developers and project financiers need to review contracts and consider transitional impacts for existing contracts, including pre-commitments for current projects.

Introduction

The Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 (ACL) was passed in the Senate on 17 March 2010. The ACL will commence on a date fixed by proclamation or the day after the date that is 6 months after Royal Assent (but commencement cannot be earlier than 1 July 2010). The Bill is currently awaiting Royal Assent.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

When “Down Down” Wasn’t Really Down - Federal Court Rules Against Coles

In its judgement delivered on 14 May 2026, the Federal Court has found that Coles engaged in misleading conduct in relation to its long-running “Down Down” promotion, accepting the ACCC’s case that many advertised discounts were not genuine. The Court held that 13 of the 14 sample “Down Down” tickets examined in the hearing conveyed false or misleading price discount representations because the stated “was” price had not applied for a reasonable period before the promotion.
AustraliaConsumer Protection
Bartier Perry Solicitors
Bartier Perry Solicitors