According to the court in Red Eagle Corporation v Ellis, what characteristic of the claimant was significant in determining their likelihood of being misled?

In the case of Red Eagle Corporation v Ellis, the court highlighted the significance of the claimant's business experience as an important factor in assessing their likelihood of being misled. The rationale behind this is that a claimant with more business experience is likely better equipped to understand the complexities of a commercial transaction and possesses greater awareness of the potential risks involved. As a result, they may approach representations and advertising with a more critical mindset compared to an individual with less experience.

This context is crucial in consumer law, where the reasonable expectations and understandings of plaintiffs can impact the outcomes of cases related to misleading conduct or representations. As such, the court made it clear that evaluating the business experience of the claimant was essential in determining whether they could be reasonably misled by the actions or claims of the defendant. This approach ties into the broader principles of fairness and consumer protection, ensuring that assessments take into account the varying knowledge and sophistication of individuals engaged in business dealings.