Reardon, Michael Joseph v. Morley Ford Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 185

Reardon, Michael Joseph v. Morley Ford Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 185

The defendant contravened s.56(1) because, on the circumstantial evidence, Mr Morley and therefore the corporation did not intend to offer 3.3 Falcons for supply at the advertised price of $6,600 for the advertised period and in reasonable quantities. The defendant also contravened s.56(2) because, after advertising the vehicles at that special price, its sales staff failed to offer them for supply at that price when requested by Michael Joseph Reardon and Juris Wilde. The sales staff's conduct was not a frolic of their own but reflected the company line, and the contrary evidence of Mr Morley on the critical point was not accepted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 1980
Procedural Posture
Prosecution for Contraventions of S.56(1) and S.56(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Concerning Bait Advertising / Reasons for Judgment on Liability and Convictions; Matter Adjourned for Submissions on Fines
Outcome
Defendant found guilty and convicted on all counts; matter adjourned for submissions on fines.
Legal Topics
['bait Advertising' 'special Price Advertising' 'corporate Intention' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'offer for Supply']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'criminal Prosecution'] ['bait Advertising' 'special Price Advertising' 'corporate Intention' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'offer for Supply']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Prosecution for Contraventions of S.56(1) and S.56(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Concerning Bait Advertising / Reasons for Judgment on Liability and Convictions; Matter Adjourned for Submissions on Fines

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant advertised 3.3 Falcon vehicles at a special price that it did not intend to offer for supply for a reasonable period and in reasonable quantities contrary to s.56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'Whether, having advertised the vehicles at a special price, the defendant failed to offer them for supply at that price when requested by Michael Joseph Reardon and Juris Wilde contrary to s.56(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' "Whether the defendant corporation's intention could be proved beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence, including the conduct and understanding of its sales staff."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant contravened s.56(1) because, on the circumstantial evidence, Mr Morley and therefore the corporation did not intend to offer 3.3 Falcons for supply at the advertised price of $6,600 for the advertised period and in reasonable quantities. The defendant also contravened s.56(2) because, after advertising the vehicles at that special price, its sales staff failed to offer them for supply at that price when requested by Michael Joseph Reardon and Juris Wilde. The sales staff's conduct was not a frolic of their own but reflected the company line, and the contrary evidence of Mr Morley on the critical point was not accepted.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty and convicted on all counts; matter adjourned for submissions on fines.

Orders

  • ['In Matter VG No. 21 of 1980 the defendant is convicted of committing a contravention of s.56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'In Matters VG Nos. 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 1980 the defendant is convicted of committing contraventions of s.56(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' 'In Matters VG Nos. 23 and...