Rodrigues, Winston Franklin Joseph & Anor v ABE Copiers Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 332

Rodrigues, Winston Franklin Joseph & Anor v ABE Copiers Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 332

The defendant's repeated misrepresentation of used photocopiers as new justified penalties under the Trade Practices Act, even though the machines performed satisfactorily and were nearly as valuable as new; the defendant's improper attitude and failure to remedy unsatisfactory practices were aggravating factors.

Parties
Prosecutor: Winston Franklin Joseph Rodrigues; Prosecutor: Stephen Garth Bede Brown; Defendant: A.B.E. Copiers Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing and Costs Order
Outcome
defendant convicted and fined; costs order granted
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation of Goods, Penalties Under Trade Practices Act, Commercial Morality
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misrepresentation of Goods Penalties Under Trade Practices Act Commercial Morality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winston Franklin Joseph Rodrigues

Prosecutor

Stephen Garth Bede Brown

Prosecutor

A.B.E. Copiers Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant supplied goods represented as new when they were not
  2. 2 Factors relevant to determination of penalty for breaches of s. 53(b) of Trade Practices Act
  3. 3 Commercial morality and attitude to breaches

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's repeated misrepresentation of used photocopiers as new justified penalties under the Trade Practices Act, even though the machines performed satisfactorily and were nearly as valuable as new; the defendant's improper attitude and failure to remedy unsatisfactory practices were aggravating factors.

Court Disposition

defendant convicted and fined; costs order granted

Orders

  • A penalty of $5,000 be imposed upon the defendant in respect of each of the offences referred to in proceedings G6, G7, G18, G23 of 1982.
  • The defendant to pay four-fifths of the prosecutors’ costs in proceedings G6, G7, G8, G9, G18, G23.