under the trade practices act?

Question

under the trade practices act conditional dealings where the dealer parts staff makes a statment like i will sell to you only if you dont sell to xyz if found neglient , this statement could impose a penelty of between $5000.00 ans $10.000.00 to who A the manager B REPRESENTATIVE c all of these people of D THE DEALER PRINCIPAL

Answer 1

Assuming, for the moment, that you mean the Trade Practices Act of 1974 of Australia, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/ and that by "found negligent" you mean that a complaint is brought to one of the tribunals or commissions set up by the act, you still need to be more specific - indeed, the answer may turn more on agency law than on the Trade Practices Act.

Critical to consideration of the problem is exactly who made the statement at issue and under what circumstances, as well as what the negligent act is. I'm guessing that you mean someone violated the restriction not to sell to XYZ - but guessing isn't a good way to come up with an accurate answer.

Answer 2

Is this an American law question? The whole scenario you raise violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is illegal as a restraint of trade. Who would be liable is difficult to tell from your set of facts. Normally, if it is company policy, it should be the "DEALER PRINCIPAL." Lower level staff seldom have liability unless they are acting totally out of the course and scope of the employment. It's rare when the buck doesn't stop at upper management. If this is a non-U.S. question, everything I just said is probably b.s.

Answer 3

section IVA describes "Unconscionable" habit to have the meaning as given contained in the written and un written regulation. The act does no longer outline it. So easily you borrow the definition from immediately ahead regulation and statute regulation. Pull out your previous Contracts textbooks for a sturdy definition. perchance attempt the Contracts review Act

Answer 4

Penalty clauses on contracts are valid in order to protect product dealings and competition. The agreements are legal as long as not against morals and public policy.