That’s correct because of the service I received. However my moving on is not relevant to the ACL issue I have raised in this forum.
What intrigues me is the level of BS that comes out of corporate announcements that are not fulfilled when it is inconvenient to do so, and as such the following is how I see it.
The ACL covers misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that is likely to be misleading or deceptive, and it extends to all situations in the course of trade or commerce.
Clearly in this case the “Harcourt values" are representations about its business activities while intending to and in fact engaging in trade or commerce with consumers. The whole exercise is to polish the outward appearance of Harcourts so as to induce consumers to deal with the company or its franchises.
In my case, the representations did not come into fruition and there is a multitude of other cases where consumers dealing with Harcourts have found the representations not coming into fruition, which causes the consumer to wish he or she had never dealt with Harcourts in the first place.
Harcourts are not alone in this sort of activity, and there are a number of other real estate brands that are responsible for a considerable amount of consumer dissatisfaction. It seems that this has become the normal way of doing business in this particular industry.
The bottom line is that it is illegal for a business to engage in conduct that misleads or deceives or is likely to mislead or deceive consumers or other businesses. The ACL imposes a standard on the market place, and the relevant question is, was the consumer led into error?
The facts are :
• Harcourts’ representations (the Values and Philosophy) are made in trade or commerce;
• consumers are entitled to believe and be induced by the representations;
• when engaging with Harcourts some of the representations don’t come into fruition;
• as a result, depending on the circumstances, consumers that suffer a loss or damage are entitled to claim relief under the ACL;
• that relief include damages, injunction, rescission of contract (such as a rental lease) and other measures.
The matter can also be aggravated by Harcourts not bothering to even try to fix the problem it has created and just walks away from it, and it is my understanding the aggravated damages can be also awarded under the ACL.
I would be grateful if anyone can point out where the Harcourts conduct is an exception to the above.