The Australian Consumer Law (Cth) asserts that the representation of misleading facts to an individual with regard to a future act and where the there are no reasonable grounds to do so shall be construed as having incurred a legal liability in lieu to the misrepresentation. Therefore, in light of Jackie’s case, a misrepresentation of facts misled Jackie to believe Harry’s assertions in regard to the shoes safety. Harry misrepresented that in using the shoe while taking the grading examination, would make Jackie more agile hence making a significant progress in his examination. However, these facts were not true and unsubstantiated by evidentiary support. Harry had no reasonable cause to misrepresent that the shoes were safe. In light of these, harry was deceptive and misleading in asserting that the doctor had no idea of what he was doing and that harry had more experience with knee injuries than the doctor. Therefore, these claims characterize deception and are misleading, therefore, making Harry’s assertions the causative aspect of Jackie’s injury. Since a duty of care was owed to Jackie, he is entitled to legal remedy in light of the misrepresentation and deception which caused him to abandon his usual bare feet approach and wear the injurious shoes.
Harm is depicted by any material or Observable detriment. Types of harm include accidental harm. This is where the injury or damage is not caused by a complicated act. There is also bodily harm. This is where there is illness, physical pain, or injury to the body; physical harm means there is physical injury to a person. Harry and the club's misrepresentation caused an injury to Jackie physically, and Jackie is angry because he must now have extraordinarily expensive and intricate knee surgery to restore his walking ability walk, let alone continue to do activities such as Kung Fu. Harry’s deception also caused an emotional harm as Jackie is undergoing pain; hence continuing with Kung Fu classes which form as the basis for his in which he lives, is no longer a viable option.
When it comes to the principle of full compensation, the law always tends to put the Plaintiff in the position he was previously in before the commission or omission of the misrepresentation or deception. Thus, the negligent on the part of Harry and club requires them to pay damages which should bring Jackie to the same position as he was previously; in the case Harry and club should have taken due care take due care in light of Jackie’s injuries.
General or indirect deterrence deals with general crime prevention by making examples of persons who have defied. The person’s actor is never the focus of the trial at behavioral change, but rather receives punishment in front of public view to prevent other persons from breaking the law in the future. Incapacitation is considered by others to be contained in a set of deterrence. Incapacitation has the objective of preventing future crimes not necessarily rehabilitating the Person but rather from taking away his or her capability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are jailed not to learn the consequence of their actions, but so that while, in prison, they will be not able to engage themselves in crime. This will ensure that Harry will not repeat his actions again to any other person. It is the use of punishment to warn and prevent people from offending others.
Duty of care is premised on taking care of a person’s duties, answering for one’s duties, accountability and trustworthiness. It also means the state of being responsible to an initiative. It is linked to both individual and societal concepts of Justice and fairness; hence individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. Harry should pay for the action of misleading Jackie because he had been warned by a professional doctor and Jackie. Grasshopper kung fu club should have insured the trainees since kung fu is a game; which has a lot of risks and an exceptionally easy one to be injured.