Guthrie, Terence James v Metro Ford Pty Ltd

[1977] FCA 46

. ,-

........ ........ ........ ........

NT,rl'I?O FCl:'.D $ W . !.J ,TYI:lT

;;a	........ ........ ........ ........ .
-.

........ ........ ........ ........ p.,?q72:,., ?,-,L

........ ........ ........ ........

Dnte lhl.crcd:

- and -

!

I

. . / 2

. ./4

-,l-

!

“Don‘t be an Aprll Fool.

D r . Jin’s lovely tax cu t s a r e gl~aranlccd tlll only

Apri l 30th. So i f you haven’t bceri o u t to Mc%ro Forcl

by t h e n , ycd could be a r e a l A p r 3 . l fool.

I ’ 11 show ycu.

. ./6

I

i

. ./ :

" r r i cc" 1s defined in S. 4 of the Act a s ~ n c l u d ~ c g a c!:arge

of any descriptlon. The imFosltlon of sale:; t a x is, OK coursc-,

a matter of law b u t cxyert. evidence was tcndcred t o t b chffcct

t h a t s a l e s t a x was levied on the las t wholesale t ransact lon

i n rcspec t to t h e goods I n queshcn . I t i s c l ca r thak sales

t a x is a conponint m thr; r-Lall plicc 0.C tho v e ? ~ i c i c s b211.r;

a d v e r t ~ s c ~ 3 a d I am s a t l e f l 2 d Jmt the ad-Jert.1 sclnL?n~ conccrnccl

!

a reduction i n pr ice . The use of the 1.>.1.5rds "Chat :,a"c you

$335" t o a prospective purchaser cl t ? d ~ ly r - c l ~ t e t o priv: and

would br. so understood by t ha t p1:ospcctiwI l>u~-&aser .

. . .