George and Mildred Vs Big Bad Caravans 
A. Plaintiffs are George and Mildred, who think they were deceived by the company Big Bad Caravans as their issue with them was that they had taken advantage of them as they were old and had absolutely no knowledge about caravans and their only mistake was that they relied entirely on the salesman named Frank Snood who is an employee at Big Bad Caravans.
B. Defendant is the company Big Bad Caravans and their issue with the Plaintiffs is that they accused the company for cheating and deceiving them about the extended warranty which covered the cost of damages and also fibbed about the features and characteristics of the caravan.
Was the advertisement just a ploy to attract George and…show more content… • Consumer Act, Section 33 (Associated Newspapers Ltd Vs Bancks  s 33 CLR 322). –
This law has been penetrated by the Defendant as Consumer Act, Section 33 states ‘A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, manufacturing process, the features, the suitability for their purpose.
The Consumer Act, Section 33 has been breached evidently for the reason that George and Mildred had been cheated on.
Will George and Mildred be able to claim their damages through the extended warranty which was signed by them as the damage was caused by exceeding payload weight? LAW:
• Civil Liability Act, Section 4 (Woods Vs Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd  s 4 CLA 460). –
The Defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care recognised by law.
The Defendant breached the duty of care.
The Plaintiff suffered losses (damages to the caravan) as a result the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care.
• Consumer Guarantees, Section 54, Subsection 3 (David Jones Ltd Vs Willis  s 54 CLR 110).
There is a guarantee that the caravan was of acceptable