Swan, Maurice Charles v Downes, Stephen Thomas [1978] FCA 31

Swan, Maurice Charles v Downes, Stephen Thomas [1978] FCA 31

There was no case to answer as the prosecution failed to prove that any of the transactions relied on payment for goods in trade or commerce among the states, as required by the statutory provisions. The acceptance of payment for goods within a state, with no contractual term or implication requiring interstate delivery, is not within the interstate trade or commerce required for a prosecution under s.58(a) (as applied).

Parties
Informant: Maurice Charles Swan; Defendant: Stephen Thomas Downes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 1978
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under Trade Practices Act / Submission of No Case to Answer; Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Informations dismissed; no case to answer
Legal Topics
Acceptance of Payment Without Intention to Supply, Trade or Commerce Among the States, Trade Practices Act 1974, S.58(a), S.6, S.79
Trade Practices Acceptance of Payment Without Intention to Supply Trade or Commerce Among the States Trade Practices Act 1974, S.58(a), S.6, S.79

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maurice Charles Swan

Informant

Stephen Thomas Downes

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution Under Trade Practices Act / Submission of No Case to Answer; Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.58(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as applied by s.6 supports a prosecution for acceptance of payment where there is no intention to supply, if the conduct does not constitute trade or commerce among the states.
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance of payment in the circumstances constituted trade or commerce among the states as required by the statute.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no case to answer as the prosecution failed to prove that any of the transactions relied on payment for goods in trade or commerce among the states, as required by the statutory provisions. The acceptance of payment for goods within a state, with no contractual term or implication requiring interstate delivery, is not within the interstate trade or commerce required for a prosecution under s.58(a) (as applied).

Court Disposition

Informations dismissed; no case to answer

Orders

  • Each information is dismissed.