Rizzo, P.A v Fitzgerald, C [1988] FCA 389

Rizzo, P.A v Fitzgerald, C [1988] FCA 389

A person contravenes s.64(2A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by sending an invoice asserting a right to payment for unsolicited services, even if those services have not yet been supplied; the assertion and sending of the invoice is sufficient, and a commercial pseudonym does not defeat the deeming provisions.

Parties
Prosecutor: Phillip Augene Rizzo; Defendant: Carol Fitzgerald
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Conviction Following Defendant's Trial, Adjourned for Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant convicted of contravening s.64(2A) of Trade Practices Act 1974
Legal Topics
Unsolicited Services, Assertion of Right to Payment, Definition of Services, Deeming Provisions, Application to Business Names
Trade Practices Unsolicited Services Assertion of Right to Payment Definition of Services Deeming Provisions Application to Business Names

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Augene Rizzo

Prosecutor

Carol Fitzgerald

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Conviction Following Defendant's Trial, Adjourned for Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, by sending an invoice, asserted a right to payment for unsolicited services contrary to s.64(2A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the services must actually have been supplied for s.64(2A) to apply
  3. 3 Whether there was a solicitation of the services

Ratio Decidendi

A person contravenes s.64(2A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by sending an invoice asserting a right to payment for unsolicited services, even if those services have not yet been supplied; the assertion and sending of the invoice is sufficient, and a commercial pseudonym does not defeat the deeming provisions.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted of contravening s.64(2A) of Trade Practices Act 1974

Orders

  • The defendant is convicted of the contravention of s.64(2A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  • The matter be adjourned to Thursday, 4 August 1988, at 2.15 pm to hear submissions on penalty and receive evidence if necessary on that subject