Wallace, J.R. v. Walplan Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 194

Wallace, J.R. v. Walplan Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 194

A failure to comply with s.56(2) constitutes a single offence per advertised vehicle; repeated refusals to individual enquirers do not multiply the offences. The conduct of salesmen, though not proved to be expressly authorised, occurred in the course of employment and is attributed to the defendant under s.84(2). The defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence under s.85(1)(c), and convictions are entered for charges where the evidence shows vehicles were not genuinely available for sale at the advertised price for a reasonable period.

Parties
Prosecutor: John Ralph Wallace; Defendant: Walplan Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Under Trade Practices Act / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Four charges proved; convictions entered for charges G22, G23, G24 and G25. Two charges (G20 and G21) dismissed.
Legal Topics
False Advertising, Offences Under Trade Practices Act S.56, Attribution of Liability to Corporations, Defence of Due Diligence
Trade Practices Law False Advertising Offences Under Trade Practices Act S.56 Attribution of Liability to Corporations Defence of Due Diligence

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ralph Wallace

Prosecutor

Walplan Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution Under Trade Practices Act / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'offer' in s.56(2) of the Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Whether multiple offences arise under s.56(2) for repeated refusals of sale
  3. 3 Whether conduct by salesmen is attributable to the defendant under s.84(2)

Ratio Decidendi

A failure to comply with s.56(2) constitutes a single offence per advertised vehicle; repeated refusals to individual enquirers do not multiply the offences. The conduct of salesmen, though not proved to be expressly authorised, occurred in the course of employment and is attributed to the defendant under s.84(2). The defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence under s.85(1)(c), and convictions are entered for charges where the evidence shows vehicles were not genuinely available for sale at the advertised price for a reasonable period.

Court Disposition

Four charges proved; convictions entered for charges G22, G23, G24 and G25. Two charges (G20 and G21) dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant convicted in respect of charges G22, G23, G24 and G25.
  • Defendant acquitted on charges G20 and G21.