Wallace, J.R. v. Brodribb, A.F. & Ors [1985] FCA 76

Wallace, J.R. v. Brodribb, A.F. & Ors [1985] FCA 76

Where an advertiser of goods at a special price intends to supply to retail purchasers, exclusion of persons reasonably believed to be unlicensed dealers does not evidence absence of intention to supply nor amount to a contravention of s 56(1) or (2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The advertisement was not directed to unlicensed dealers, and refusal to sell on that ground was not a breach of the section.

Parties
Prosecutor: John Ralph Wallace; Defendant: Alan Francis Brodribb; Defendant: Hugh Robertson Brooks; Defendant: Walplan Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Prosecution by Information / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
The defendants were each found not guilty and the informations dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bait Advertising, Intention in Statutory Offences, Offer to Supply, Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 56, Sale of Motor Vehicles, Unlicensed Motor Dealers
Trade Practices Criminal Law Bait Advertising Intention in Statutory Offences Offer to Supply Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 56 Sale of Motor Vehicles Unlicensed Motor Dealers

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ralph Wallace

Prosecutor

Alan Francis Brodribb

Defendant

Hugh Robertson Brooks

Defendant

Walplan Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding Prosecution by Information / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the nature of the intention required by s 56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in relation to bait advertising?
  2. 2 Does a failure to supply an advertised vehicle at the special price in these circumstances amount to a contravention of s 56(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)?
  3. 3 What is the meaning of 'offer' under s 56 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)?

Ratio Decidendi

Where an advertiser of goods at a special price intends to supply to retail purchasers, exclusion of persons reasonably believed to be unlicensed dealers does not evidence absence of intention to supply nor amount to a contravention of s 56(1) or (2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The advertisement was not directed to unlicensed dealers, and refusal to sell on that ground was not a breach of the section.

Court Disposition

The defendants were each found not guilty and the informations dismissed.

Orders

  • In each matter (Qld G49, G50, G51, G52 of 1984), the defendant is not guilty and the information is dismissed.
  • The prosecutor is to pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.