Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[BruceFromBalnarring]

A business that opens its doors engages in conduct that constitutes an 'invitation to treat'.
An invitation to treat essentially says "I have these products for sale and anyone is welcome to purchase them for the advertised price". If you go into a business and say "yes, I would like to buy your product for that price" & the business was to say, "sorry I won't sell to you", that would be misleading & deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

No it wouldn't. You can't have a finding of misleading and deceptive conduct in the absence of a purported contract. And there's no contract if the business doesn't enter into a contract.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

No it wouldn't. You can't have a finding of misleading and deceptive conduct in the absence of a purported contract. And there's no contract if the business doesn't enter into a contract.

Tend to agree with Bruce here. Invitation to treat is about offer and acceptance which are perquisites in creating a contract between parties. There can be no contract where there is nothing negotiated because there is a refusal to supply. Contract law inapplicable.

Deceptive and misleading conduct first requires you are holding something out which is then inherently untrue.

Rather discriminatory trading is about existence or otherwise of discrimination: ie I'm refusing to sell solely because you are gay.

Different beasts IMO

 

[Number37]

No it wouldn't. You can't have a finding of misleading and deceptive conduct in the absence of a purported contract. And there's no contract if the business doesn't enter into a contract.

You're right, an invitation to treat is not a contract.
But misleading and deceptive conduct DOES NOT require a contract.

Part 2‑1—Misleading or deceptive conduct


18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

You cannot advertise stuff for sale, if that stuff isn't actually for sale.
Advertising, like displaying stuff for sale, is an invitation to treat.
If you don't actually have the stuff for sale, it is misleading and deceptive conduct.
It is one of the reasons businesses advertise sales "until stock runs out". The court cases on this have established that if you advertise something for sale it is assumed that you have a reasonable quantity of that item for sale, unless you specify how many you have for sale.

Privity of contract prevents anyone that isn't a party to a contract from taking action based on the contract. The fact that the ACCC takes action on behalf of consumers (not even specific consumers) further demonstrates that misleading and deceptive conduct does NOT require a contract.

 

[Number37]

Tend to agree with Bruce here. Invitation to treat is about offer and acceptance which are perquisites in creating a contract between parties. There can be no contract where there is nothing negotiated because there is a refusal to supply. Contract law inapplicable.

Deceptive and misleading conduct first requires you are holding something out which is then inherently untrue.

Rather discriminatory trading is about existence or otherwise of discrimination: ie I'm refusing to sell solely because you are gay.

Different beasts IMO

Invitation to treat is not about offer & acceptance.

 

[Tuco]

So we're getting a float? Yay.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Invitation to treat is not about offer & acceptance.

An invitation to treat is a representation made sometimes through advertising that is preparatory to negotiating offer and acceptance under contract and not viewed as formal offer but rather and invitation to deal. Sooooooo it is prepratory stage prior offer and acceptance which means my comments are still valid. You can't have a contract if one party refuses supply. There is no offer.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You're right, an invitation to treat is not a contract.
But misleading and deceptive conduct DOES NOT require a contract.




You cannot advertise stuff for sale, if that stuff isn't actually for sale.
Advertising, like displaying stuff for sale, is an invitation to treat.
If you don't actually have the stuff for sale, it is misleading and deceptive conduct.
It is one of the reasons businesses advertise sales "until stock runs out". The court cases on this have established that if you advertise something for sale it is assumed that you have a reasonable quantity of that item for sale, unless you specify how many you have for sale.

Privity of contract prevents anyone that isn't a party to a contract from taking action based on the contract. The fact that the ACCC takes action on behalf of consumers (not even specific consumers) further demonstrates that misleading and deceptive conduct does NOT require a contract.

False advertising only becomes misleading and deceptive conduct when a party contracts. I am sure that there are penalties for false advertising in the absence of a contract but I don't know what they are and they don't come under misleading and deceptive conduct in the contractual sense.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You're right, an invitation to treat is not a contract.
But misleading and deceptive conduct DOES NOT require a contract.




You cannot advertise stuff for sale, if that stuff isn't actually for sale.
Advertising, like displaying stuff for sale, is an invitation to treat.
If you don't actually have the stuff for sale, it is misleading and deceptive conduct.
It is one of the reasons businesses advertise sales "until stock runs out". The court cases on this have established that if you advertise something for sale it is assumed that you have a reasonable quantity of that item for sale, unless you specify how many you have for sale.

Privity of contract prevents anyone that isn't a party to a contract from taking action based on the contract. The fact that the ACCC takes action on behalf of consumers (not even specific consumers) further demonstrates that misleading and deceptive conduct does NOT require a contract.

You're right, an invitation to treat is not a contract.
But misleading and deceptive conduct DOES NOT require a contract.




You cannot advertise stuff for sale, if that stuff isn't actually for sale.
Advertising, like displaying stuff for sale, is an invitation to treat.
If you don't actually have the stuff for sale, it is misleading and deceptive conduct.
It is one of the reasons businesses advertise sales "until stock runs out". The court cases on this have established that if you advertise something for sale it is assumed that you have a reasonable quantity of that item for sale, unless you specify how many you have for sale.

Privity of contract prevents anyone that isn't a party to a contract from taking action based on the contract. The fact that the ACCC takes action on behalf of consumers (not even specific consumers) further demonstrates that misleading and deceptive conduct does NOT require a contract.

Certainly. But The liklihood of an action as deceptive and misleading for insufficient stock is virtually non existent. Why? Because the exigencies of business are such that estimates of stock needs , shelving display and demand for a sale are things that change. When did the buyer seek purchase ?- at the first opening or later. what was the demand and requisite supply? these are all vagaries of business which give the business a viable excuse so that no action would be taken.

Accusations have recently been levied at ALDI for example relating to ther 'special buys' which are available in limited numbers on sometimes high demand so that product is sometimes completely sold out next morning of it hitting shelves. It had been claimed to be bait advertising to get shoppers in store without intention to sell. The accusation was met by a simple one liner from ALDI. "The nature of retailing is such that ALDI always seeks to sell as much product it possible can. It's sensible business to do so. To suggest we intentionally limit stock so as not to sell isn't our business model". End of discussion at that point- nothing can be proved simply too hard.

 

[mtooler]

Nah, surprisingly enough the conservative opinion piece cherry picks data and ignores qualifiers in the research it's citing. Highlights mental issues and a number of the citations used state that the mechanics are either unknown or generally from external sources like bullying or the social stigma. Sources used also point out that adopted children have a much higher risk of mental issues and this needs to be accounted for when examining the numbers. Was this qualifier in your opinion piece?

Though please go through and show me how this picks apart and proves bias in peer reviewed research and governmental studies.

The article, citing court cases where testimony was given does highlight that no such consensus exists as you claimed.

 

[mtooler]

A business that opens its doors engages in conduct that constitutes an 'invitation to treat'.
An invitation to treat essentially says "I have these products for sale and anyone is welcome to purchase them for the advertised price". If you go into a business and say "yes, I would like to buy your product for that price" & the business was to say, "sorry I won't sell to you", that would be misleading & deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Subject to caveats.

 

[Tedeski]

A business that opens its doors engages in conduct that constitutes an 'invitation to treat'.
An invitation to treat essentially says "I have these products for sale and anyone is welcome to purchase them for the advertised price". If you go into a business and say "yes, I would like to buy your product for that price" & the business was to say, "sorry I won't sell to you", that would be misleading & deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Unless it's a night club where bouncers get to pick & choose who to "do business with".
It may be law but in my business (food & not night clubs) if I don't wish to serve someone for what ever reason, (race or sexuality not being one), then it is very easy to give reasons not to.

It very rarely happens but staff harrassment from customers & consistent complaining about the same thing over & over, just to be a nuisance, has led me to advise certain customers over the years that we will no longer serve them.
Then when that fails I give them a brief history lesson on what part of southern Italy my trading practices were genetically inherited from.
There's always a way.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Unless it's a night club where bouncers get to pick & choose who to "do business with".
It may be law but in my business (food & not night clubs) if I don't wish to serve someone for what ever reason, (race or sexuality not being one), then it is very easy to give reasons not to.

It very rarely happens but staff harrassment from customers & consistent complaining about the same thing over & over, just to be a nuisance, has led me to advise certain customers over the years that we will no longer serve them.
Then when that fails I give them a brief history lesson on what part of southern Italy my trading practices were genetically inherited from.

There's always a way.

lmao love it.

My ex was a bit twisted (probably why she is my ex now) and one morning at a cafe for breakfast she abused a waitress for shoddy service, went to the owner and he duly told us to eff off and never come back. I was terribly miffed. Had only had one bite.....she could at least waited til I finished and had a free breakfast.

I went up to owner at this point trying to calm him from my wife's trouble making. "Mate just calm down".

"Just eff off came the response. Get out of my cafe" and then he pushed me. Normally that's a bad mistake but I must have had calm pills that day because I just turned and walked.

 

[Number37]

An invitation to treat is a representation made sometimes through advertising that is preparatory to negotiating offer and acceptance under contract and not viewed as formal offer but rather and invitation to deal. Sooooooo it is prepratory stage prior offer and acceptance which means my comments are still valid. You can't have a contract if one party refuses supply. There is no offer.

There is a clear distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer.

Offer & acceptance is a neat way to explain contract formation but in a lot of ways is problematic.

 

[Number37]

False advertising only becomes misleading and deceptive conduct when a party contracts. I am sure that there are penalties for false advertising in the absence of a contract but I don't know what they are and they don't come under misleading and deceptive conduct in the contractual sense.

This is the Australian Consumer Law, it is wholly unambiguous that there need not be a contract.

18 Misleading or deceptive conduct
(1) A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

All you need is (1) a person (2) in trade or commerce (3) misleading or deceptive conduct

If you had a contract you wouldn't sue for false advertising because your remedy would be what?
If you had a contract you would sue for breach of contract.

 

[Number37]

Unless it's a night club where bouncers get to pick & choose who to "do business with".
It may be law but in my business (food & not night clubs) if I don't wish to serve someone for what ever reason, (race or sexuality not being one), then it is very easy to give reasons not to.

It very rarely happens but staff harrassment from customers & consistent complaining about the same thing over & over, just to be a nuisance, has led me to advise certain customers over the years that we will no longer serve them.
Then when that fails I give them a brief history lesson on what part of southern Italy my trading practices were genetically inherited from.
There's always a way.

Of course it is easy to find a reason, that is another reason why it is so dumb that people are asking for exemptions.

Don Tedeski

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This is the Australian Consumer Law, it is wholly unambiguous that there need not be a contract.


All you need is (1) a person (2) in trade or commerce (3) misleading or deceptive conduct

If you had a contract you wouldn't sue for false advertising because your remedy would be what?
If you had a contract you would sue for breach of contract.

What does 2 mean?

You probably want to stop this.

 

[Kummerspeck]

The article, citing court cases where testimony was given

Citation and link plz.

does highlight that no such consensus exists as you claimed.

The bold is news to me. In any case, saying there's not consensus is not evidence of bias amongst the multiple organisations that have undertaken studies on this. That's the key point. You're dismissing a lot of research, review and synthesis done by multiple, independent organisations as 'bias'.

 

[Number37]

What does 2 mean?

You probably want to stop this.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

When you start down a track you really don't know what the effect of that choice will be and can only tell in hindsight. We've thrown out the definition and tradition of marriage that has served us for centuries and was only ever contemplated as being a man and woman.

On my readings today it's pretty clear that the environment of a same sex marriage as place to start a family will dramatically influence sexual orientation for that child. I've already mentioned the adopted chikd syndrome avd the Cinderella effect. Will same sex orientation be as high as 70% as cited on one article I don't know. Not at all surprising really because children model their behaviours on parents. Greater experimentation. More fluid conception of sexuality. Many end up in same sex relationships. How do people view this fact?

When my GFs son first came out as gay to her she embraced him. Quietly she was sad talking to me about it mainly because of what she knew he would endure and because she saw an uncertain path with grandchildren. Enlightened, accepting and supportive but sad.

Having a son or daughter who is same sex oriented doesn't change the love nor should it but let's not kid ourselves ........it's not a path the parent would choose if choices were available. Setting in motion same sex families that produce same sex children by environmental conditioning is also not something you would willingly choose unless of course your own needs outweighed those of your children.

 

[Number37]

When you start down a track you really don't know what the effect of that choice will be and can only tell in hindsight. We've thrown out the definition and tradition of marriage that has served us for centuries and was only ever contemplated as being a man and woman.

On my readings today it's pretty clear that the environment of a same sex marriage as place to start a family will dramatically influence sexual orientation for that child. I've already mentioned the adopted chikd syndrome avd the Cinderella effect. Will same sex orientation be as high as 70% as cited on one article I don't know. Not at all surprising really because children model their behaviours on parents. Greater experimentation. More fluid conception of sexuality. Many end up in same sex relationships. How do people view this fact?

When my GFs son first came out as gay to her she embraced him. Quietly she was sad talking to me about it mainly because of what she knew he would endure and because she saw an uncertain path with grandchildren. Enlightened, accepting and supportive but sad.

Having a son or daughter who is same sex oriented doesn't change the love nor should it but let's not kid ourselves ........it's not a path the parent would choose if choices were available. Setting in motion same sex families that produce same sex children by environmental conditioning is also not something you would willingly choose unless of course your own needs outweighed those of your children.

Please explain why/how hetero couples are so good at producing same sex kids ...given your hilarious theory that same sex parents produce same sex children.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

It seems to have the last half dozen times I've been to Court on the issue but I'm happy to take your advice.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Please explain why/how hetero couples are so good at producing same sex kids ...given your hilarious theory that same sex parents produce same sex children.

Not my theory but that of clincal pyschologists and genetiic researchers. I simply read and absorb. But you want enlightenment then I'll give you that and it's anything but hilarious. There has been debate ever since the 1930s originally postulated in the Mead study of PNG tribes as to derivation of behaviour whether learned or genetic. That debate has raged ever since. Framed as nature v nurture. Geneticists on one side and pyschologists the other. Pyschologists would have you believe that Mead was sacrosanct and virtually all behaviour is learned. But if you read the critiques as i have you will understand that Meads study had it's limitations which influenced it's conclusions. More recently in a 2012 study by Qld brain institute the largest study ever done of world wide twins studies since 1950s resolved and tabulated the answer definitively. All behaviour derives 49% from it's genetic roots and 51% by environmental or learned behaviour being things you encounter by experience from sources such as family. So in a sense it's a mixture of influences

These conclusions allow us to now look closer through genetic analysis to determine how genes influence behaviour and conversely how sociological cultural and familial influences and experiences likewise influence. It is a well known fact that a child who is sexually abused by a pedaphile will have a extremely strong disposition to become a pedaphile and repeat the pattern. The same can be said of domestic abuse of children- the patterns repeat when child becomes adult. That's because experiences become learned behaviour and entrenched.

On the other hand geneticists are making anazing discoveries on genes- a gene that gives predisposition to cheating as one such example. Genes identified to explain the dominant v submissive attraction between all couples heterosexual or not. I'm sure there would be genes in the genome that predispose to same sex attraction likewise.

My point in the articles I read was that same sex families influence children by their behaviours of sexual orientation and those influences and exposure to it rather than insulation from it and creates higher incidence of same sex attraction amongst the children upon becoming adult. It is entirely consistent with the model we now know of how behaviour evolves.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Please explain why/how hetero couples are so good at producing same sex kids ...given your hilarious theory that same sex parents produce same sex children.

Sorry I didn't answer a facet of your question. There is no 'good' or 'bad' for that matter in heterosexual couples producing same sex kids or hetero ones that is an unnecessary term you use to be emotive. It happens and if statistics are to believed is 3% of population (though I thought was higher). Answer of course is that 49% of behaviour comes from genetics. I certainly believe there is same sex attraction gene. Anecdotal personal experience - I know of one male child predisposed to wear female clothes as young at 3 yo who became gay and likewise a girl who from 3 yo insisted on wearing boys clothes and became lesbian. I do not believe that is coincidence.

The environment in a heterosexual marriage isn't encouraging to same sex attraction because models and experiences are hetero based but gentics will in instances override learned behaviours.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There is a clear distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer.

Offer & acceptance is a neat way to explain contract formation but in a lot of ways is problematic.

I studied contract law in my university BCom course. offer, acceptance and consideration and you have a contract. They are the only 3 requirements. Not problematic at all. The only remedies for breach are damages and specific performance. Conditions precedent and conditions subsequent and that's contract law encapsulated.

 

[mtooler]

Citation and link plz.

The bold is news to me. In any case, saying there's not consensus is not evidence of bias amongst the multiple organisations that have undertaken studies on this. That's the key point. You're dismissing a lot of research, review and synthesis done by multiple, independent organisations as 'bias'.

That means you didn't read the article, thought you didn't. Don't be asking for any gophering for your own research in future from me, as its a waste of time if you don't read it. Its just being insincerely argumentative on your part without addressing issues, it looks like you just desire to discuss semantics.