Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Pitt

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (the Commissioner) brought proceedings against Pitt, alleging breaches of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) in relation to the supply of goods. The dispute concerned whether Pitt had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and had supplied goods that were not of acceptable quality. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether Pitt's conduct in supplying the goods amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, contrary to section 18 of the ACL. It also had to consider whether the goods supplied by Pitt were of "acceptable quality" as defined by section 266 of the ACL, and if not, whether Pitt had contravened section 259 of the ACL by failing to comply with a consumer guarantee.

The Court reasoned that the question of whether conduct is misleading or deceptive is an objective one, assessed by reference to the likely effect on a relevant section of the public. It considered the representations made by Pitt and the context in which they were made, concluding that the conduct was likely to mislead consumers about the nature and quality of the goods. Regarding the acceptable quality, the Court applied the statutory definition, which includes fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied, and acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe, and durable. The Court found that the goods failed to meet these standards.

The High Court allowed the Commissioner's appeal, finding that Pitt had contravened sections 18 and 259 of the ACL.