Guthrie, Terence James Doyle Dane & Bernbach Pty Ltd [1977] FCA 65

Guthrie, Terence James Doyle Dane & Bernbach Pty Ltd [1977] FCA 65

The defendant company made an advertisement that conveyed a misleading statement concerning the existence of a price reduction due to temporary sales tax reductions, contravening s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The defence under s 85 was not made out as the defendant took no precautions nor exercised due diligence beyond relying on client representations.

Parties
Informant: Terence James Guthrie; Defendant: Doyle Dane and Bernbach Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 1977
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant convicted.
Legal Topics
Trade Practices Act 1974, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Advertising Regulation, Defences to Statutory Contravention
Competition and Consumer Law Trade Practices Act 1974 Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Advertising Regulation Defences to Statutory Contravention

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence James Guthrie

Informant

Doyle Dane and Bernbach Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made a misleading statement concerning the existence of price reductions in connection with the supply of goods contrary to s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the advertisement's statements refer to price reductions and whether they were misleading
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rely on s 85 defence (reasonable reliance/due diligence)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant company made an advertisement that conveyed a misleading statement concerning the existence of a price reduction due to temporary sales tax reductions, contravening s 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The defence under s 85 was not made out as the defendant took no precautions nor exercised due diligence beyond relying on client representations.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted.

Orders

  • Defendant company is convicted.
  • Defendant company to pay a penalty of $2,000.