In the case of who Jonas could sue, it is necessary to consider two different situations. Now under the contract or the consumer law, section 18 states that a person in trade or commerce must not mislead or be deceptive. The emphasis here is that the person must be in trade or commerce, but this is not the case here, as the charger was given to Jonas by a friend. However, under the tort law of negligence, it can be said that the friend in giving away a charger that she no longer requires to Jonas might hold a duty of care to Jonas. Jonas can sue the manufacturer who also owes a duty of care.
Jonas could seek compensation for his injury under Australian contract law, under the section 18 of the Australian Consumer law, which was previously part of schedule 2 of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Australian contract law is usually established under common law but is extended with statutes in current times for reasons of protecting the consumer. The issue addressed here is misleading and/or deceptive conduct. If Jonas is able to prove that the actions of the seller when selling the charger to him was misleading or if the seller was deceptive, then he would be able to seek remedies under the s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law “A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive” (Australian Consumer Law, 2016). Secondly, under the tort law of negligence, the person who sold the charger to Jonas owes a duty of care to Jonas. Because by allowing Jonas to borrow or buy a charger, they know they are hazardous. They have breached that duty of care, which means Jonas can charge the person who sold the charger to them. The manufacturer of the charger holds the duty of care to Jonas.