Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Dell Computer Pty Limited [2002] FCAFC 434
By majority, Dell's relevant obligation was to supply a delivered computer to the customer's nominated place of delivery, not to sell an undelivered computer plus a separate optional service. The compulsory delivery amount was therefore part of the price of the goods for the purposes of s 53(e). The first and second categories of advertisements gave prominence to a price that did not include the compulsory delivery amount and did not disclose the compulsory nature of that amount, thereby making a false or misleading representation with respect to price. Section 53C was not contravened: the first and second categories were not representations explicitly concerning part-payments, and the...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Trade Practices Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; Cross Appeal on Costs
- Outcome
- The majority held that the Commission was entitled to a declaration that publication of the first and second categories of advertisements contravened s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), that the s 53C allegations failed, and that Dell's cross-appeal should fail. The appeal was stood over for the making of...
- Legal Topics
- ['false or Misleading Representations With Respect to Price' 'cash Price to Be Stated' 'compulsory Delivery Charge' 'computer Product Advertisements' 'costs Cross Appeal']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia; Cross Appeal on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether Dell's advertisements in the first and second categories made false or misleading representations with respect to the price of goods contrary to s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)." 'Whether a compulsory delivery fee was part of the price or consideration for the supply of Dell computer products.' "Whether Dell's advertisements contravened s 53C of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by failing to specify the cash price." "Whether Dell's cross-appeal against the primary judge's costs order should succeed."]
Ratio Decidendi
By majority, Dell's relevant obligation was to supply a delivered computer to the customer's nominated place of delivery, not to sell an undelivered computer plus a separate optional service. The compulsory delivery amount was therefore part of the price of the goods for the purposes of s 53(e). The first and second categories of advertisements gave prominence to a price that did not include the compulsory delivery amount and did not disclose the compulsory nature of that amount, thereby making a false or misleading representation with respect to price. Section 53C was not contravened: the first and second categories were not representations explicitly concerning part-payments, and the...
Court Disposition
The majority held that the Commission was entitled to a declaration that publication of the first and second categories of advertisements contravened s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), that the s 53C allegations failed, and that Dell's cross-appeal should fail. The appeal was stood over for the making of...
Orders
- ['The appeal be stood over to a date to be fixed for the purpose of making orders, including an order or orders as to costs.' 'The parties to provide to the Associate of Branson J by 12 February 2003 an agreed minute of the orders to be made (including the order or orders to be made as to costs) and if agreement has...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment