(c) That's wrong. Normally, when an agent acts on behalf of their principal, they do not themselves become liable on the relevant transaction. For example, if an agent enters into a contract for their principal, they do not become a party to the contract, even if they sign the relevant documents on behalf of their principal.

However, the scope of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law is very broad. It prohibits any conduct in trade or commerce that is misleading. It does not matter whether the conduct was carried out by a principal or an agent: if either a principal or an agent engages in conduct that is likely to mislead, then they are potentially in breach of s 18.

This means that answer (b) is not correct.

As to the necessity of intention, the liability for misleading conduct under s 18 does not require any intention: regardless of whether the person who engages in the conduct does so intentionally or not, they may still be liable. Acting as an agent does not affect this, so even if Paul was acting as an agent and without any intention to mislead, he will himself be liable for a breach of s 18.

See Yorke v Treasureway Stores Pty Ltd .

This means that answer (c) is wrong and (a) is the correct answer.