Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd v Rank Electronic Housewares Pty Ltd

[1983] FCA 417

CATCI-IWORES

Trade P rac t l ces Acr 1974 - misleading or decept ive conduct -

whether and t o what extent the conduct of a manufacturer

should be qulded by contemplated conduct of a r e t a l l e r .

Trade Pract lces Act 1374 ss.52 and 8 0 .

BRAEMAR APPLIANCES PTY. LTD. V . RANK ELECTROXIC 1II)USF:WARES - - - -

PTY. LTD. -

VG No. 181 of 1983

Srnltners J .

4 November 1983

Melbourne.

!

i

...

I N THE FElIERAL CO'JRT OF AUST-LIA)

)

V I C T O R I A DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG No. 181 of 1983

GENEPAL	D I V I S I O N	)
1

EX TENPORE JUDGMENT

3etween: BRAEMAR HPPLIANCdS PTY.

LT D .

And:	R N J K EIXC'I'RlC HOUSEWAKES
-	P w . LTD.

(Respondent)

4 November 1983

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT -

HIS EIOhTOUR: I n this c a s e I do not propose t o g ran t any

r e l l e f a t thls s tage . Rel le f can on ly be g lven under

s.52 of t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t 1974 ( t h e A c t ) where

It is shown tha t conduc t of a mis leading andlor

decept lve nature has been commit ted or lf It 1 s

reasonably apprehended it wlll occur or occur aga ln .

I n t h l s c a s e 1t i s sa ld t he conduc t was and 1 s l .lkely

t o m i s l e a d members of t h e p u b l l c and t o some e x t e n t

po ten t~ . a l cus tomers of t h e a p p l i c a n t .

The r e sponden t is a t r a d e r i n a l a r g e way 111

2.

e l e c t r l c a l d o m e s t i c a n d o t h e r e l c c t r l c a l . I t e m s , a n d

so is t h e a p p l i c a n t . A l a r g e a r e a o f t h e l r t r a d e

ove r l aps . A l a rge por t lon , someth lng l l k e 40 pe r

c e n t of t he r e sponden t ' S products, are lmported and

t h e o t h e r 60 p e r c e n t o r t h e r e a b o u t s a r e Australian

made.

The respondent embarked upon a campalqn t o emphasise

t o t h e pub11.c t h e d e s i r a b i l l t y of t h e i r b u y l n g I t s

A u s t r a l l a n made goods. I t d i s t r i b u t e d p u h l l c l t y

mater la l which was capable of being used In a way i n

which the pub l l c mlgh t t h ln l c t ha t t he r e sponden t ' S

produc t s , no t on ly Aus t r a l l an made b u t a l s o i m p o r t e d

a r t l c l e s , b e l n g displayed more o r l e s s t o g e t h e r ,

would appear t o t h e p u b l l c t o h e A u s t r a l l a n made.

And of course on casua l observance o f the display of

goods as proved for example a t Grace B r o s . , t h e

ordinary person would not know which were lmported

and whlch were Australlan made.

I n s o f a r as r e t a l l e r s p e r m i t t e d c u s t o m e r s t o b e m i s l e d

In t h l s con t r aven t lon of w a y , t h e y w e r e g u i l t y o f c o n d u c t 111

the Act. 'The ques t ion be fo re m e 1 s

r e a l l y w h e t h e r s u c h l n s t a n c e s o f t h a t c l a s s o f

conduct whch occur red can be sa ld t o have occurred

b e c a u s e o f a n d a r l s l n g o u t of c o n d u c t o f t h e

r e s p o n d c n t i t s e l f . The respondent was f u l l y e n t i t l e d

t o d e l l v e r t o i t s 4000 retailers p d b l l c l t y m a t e r l a l

of the k i n d t h a t It d l d . It was f u l l y e n t l t l e d t o g o

o n d e l l v e r i n g g o o d s , b o t h A u s t r a l ~ a n made and

imported, t o those r e t a i l e r s .

There was no doubt a p o s s l b l l i t y c h a t some retailers

w o u l d n o t p o s t e r s a n d o t h e r p u b l i c l t y m a t e r i a l r e a l i s e t h a t p a r t i c u l a r u s a g e of t h e

would be capable

of c r e a t l n g t h e i m p r e s s i o n l n t h e m ~ n d s of potential

customers that goods, which were ac tua l ly Impor ted ,

were Aus t ra l ian made. N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e d l s t i n L t l o n

was q u i t e c l e a r l y made and any sensible, s n t e l l l g e n t

or o r d i n a r y b u s i n e s s r e t a l l e r would have known wh.rhlch

were imported and known t h a t It was mlsconduct on h I s whlch were Australian msde and

would have p a r t

' t o mlx them up and put them under tile same p o s t e r s

a n d o t h e r p u b l i c l t y m a t e r l a l so t h a t p e o p l e would be

deceived. I t might be posslble t o make t h e c a s e t h a t

t h e p r o b a b l l i t y of retallers tak ing advantage of t h e

oppor tun l ty by urging customers t o buy A u s t r a l i a n

made, In the a tmosphere whlch was t o be c rea t ed by

the campaign, t o l n c r e a s e t h e s a l e s of t h e i r g o o d s ,

including imported goods which a l s o m l g h t we1.l be

bought by customers, under the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e y

were buylng Aus t ra l ian made goods, and t h a t t h e

respondent should have taken s teps to red i l r? the

4.

The respondent was aware of the p o s s l b i l l t y o f s u c h a

th ing occur r inq and It d1.d something about it. I t

conducted semlnars whlch polntcd o u t t h e n e c e s s l t y

f o r c a r e b u t , more ~ m p o r t a n t l y , ~t d l d write a l e t t e r

t o e v e r y r e t a i l e r i n f o r m i n g t h e r c t a l l e r , I n l a n g u a g e

which would seem to m e t o b e r e a s o n a b l e for a

bus lness man, t h a t r e t a l l e r s w e r e t o make s u r e t h a t

t h e i r c u s t o m e r s knew which of the p roducts marke ted

d u r i n g t h e goods were not made I n month long prornotlon of Australian made

A u s t r a l i a , so' t h a t e v e r y

r e t a i l e r had h i s a r t e n t l o n drawn t o t h e f a c t 'chat ~t

was necessary for h lm 20 make s u r e t h a t p e o p l e w e r e

not misled. Whar more a wholesa le r o r manufac turer

a s t he r e sponden t IS, would be r e q u l r e d t o d o I

cannot say. I d ld have 111 mlnd t h a t 111 t h l s c a s e lt

might be proper , havlng regard to the f a c t t h a t t h e

r e s p o n d e n t i s s t i l l maklng use of the Advance

Australia	l o g o ,	t o	g r a n t	some	form	of	r e l i e f	t o	t h e
a p p l l c a n t .

I t 1 s p o s s i b l e t h a t c e r t a l n of t h e r e t a l l e r s w l l l

h e r e a f t e r e l t h e r deliberately or b y a c c l d e n t , f a l l

I n t o t h e e r r o r of u s l n g t h a t logo I n a way which w l l l

a c t u a l l y constitute a mlsrepresenta t lon concern lnq

Y

S.

goods whicn they a re se l l lng so that unported voods

may be thought by cus tomers to be Australian made.

Never the less , a5 was emphas~sed I n Parkdale Custom

B u i l t Pu rn l tu re P ty . L td . v . Puxu Pty. Ltd. C19821 56

A L J R 715 a t 1 2 3 per Mason J . , t h e r e 1s a l a r g e g u l f

be tween the manuEacturer who s u p p l i e s g o o d s t o

r e t a l l e r s and the c o n d u c t of t h e r e t a l l e r s

themselves. If the manufac turer 1s b e t o made

r e spons ib l e I n r e s p e c t of misconduct of the r e t a l l e r

lt m u s t be shown with r e a s o n a b l e c l a r l t y t h a t Llle

respondent ought to have contemplated that It would

occur, or knew that it was l i k e l y t o o c c u r .

I n this case I th ink undoub ted ly t ha t the respondent

knew of t h e p o s s i b l l l t y o f I n s c o n d u c t . How f a r h e

was r e q u l r e d t o g o t o g u a r d a g a l n s t It was a ma t t e r

f o r o r d m a r y and proper -bus iness cons ldera t lon . He

went as f a r a s he w e n t I n t h e l e t t e r . I am n o t

p r e p a r e d t o s a y t h a t t h a t w a s n o t as f a r a s was

r equ l r ed i n t he c i r cums tances o f this case . Had lt

been brought to i t s a t t e n t i o n a t a n e a r l y s t a g e t h a t

confusion was occurr ing because of the u s e of t h e

m a t e r i a l , t h e n i t s o b l i g a t i o n might have increased .

Whllst t h e a p p l l c a n t knew of the p romot ion In the

form It alleges s ince ear ly September 1983, t h e r e was

never any l e t t e r , any telephoplc communicatlon, any

waining u n t l l th is d p p l i c a t l o n was t a k e n o u t i n

. .- I

, . v'-

6.

c

October 1983. And these observa t lons have added

f o r c e now t h a t t h e campalgn has come to an end and

r e l e v a n t c u r r e n t a c t l v l t y c o n c e r n s only t h e

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f "Made i n A u s t r a l l a " logoS. This i s

e s s e n t i a l l y a d i f f e r e n t a c t l v l t y w i t h much l e s s

p r o b a b ~ l l t y t h a t t h e logos w i l l be misused t o m l s l e a d

t h e publ lc .

Accordlngly, i n my opln ion , the c l rcumstances are n o t

a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e makJng of an o rder g ran t lng an

l n t e r i n l ~ n ~ u n c t ~ o n . I , t h e r e i o r e d i . s i n l s s t h e

appl ica t lon accord ingly . There w l l l be a n o r d e r f o r

costs i n favour of the respondent .

! I T S

. 5 4 1 -

i I L