Guthrie, Terence James v Universal Telecasters Queensland Ltd

[1977] FCA 99

1. The defendapt company is convic ted .

2. The defendant company is t o pay a p e n a l t y of $2 ,000 (two thousan

d o l l a r s ) .

3. Thc defendant company is t o pay the in fo rmap t ' s costs.

It w a s alleged, by way of part icu. l .ay-s , that the statements

were misleading i n t h a t the words meant t h a t the e x i s t e n c e

of a ' reducticn i n price i n such vehic les would not c o n t i n u e

a f t e r 30 Apri l , 1975 so that a purchaser a f t e r t h z t d a t e

would have t o pay an a d d i t i o n a l $335 i n sales t a x on

s u c h a vehicle whereas the true p o s i t i o n was t h a t a

r e d u c t i o n in price was to cont inue though at a reduced

antoun t .

2

t h a t thc r e p e t i t i o n of a mis l - ead ing s-tatenlent made by

.

s o ~ n c other. person is not an of fence . S e c t i o n 8 5 ( 3 ) ,

to which I advert l a t e r , i s s u f f i . c i r ? n t t o deal with

this a r g u m e n t , if t he plai.11 words of t he s e c t i o n were

not s u f f i c i e n t .

3

con travealiion of the T r a c k Practices A c t .

s t a t i on Channcll 0 i n Brislsano.

Terry Garry, the sales manager of the t e lev is ion s - t a t ion .

H e informed PSr. Garry tha t the advertisement was misleading,

" i n as much a s sales t a x would not increase by $ 3 3 5 on

the Falcon i n Mayt'. Mr. Garry questioned Mr. Pakerson

as to h i s Icnowlcclge of s a l e s t a x and the l a t t e r replicd

awarenes.5 of the sales t a x pos i t ion . NI:. Ga r ry s a i d t h a t

s p s c i f y the na tu re of .the complaint . Mr. Garry s e n t by

p o s t a script of	the advert isement t o Mr.	Wise.	On
. . /5

S

an

it i s t.o publ.ish or a r r a n g e for the publicaticn

of advcrti.semcnts and t h a t he received the

d

adver-tiscn!t?nt f o r publication in t h e ordinary

course of business and d i d not know and had 110

reason to suspec t t'llat i t s publication would

G

t o sales t ax af- ter 30 April, 1975.

booklet whicll v~ouLd. nppca-r t o o b t a i n a n adccpcte surrmary

of P a r t s IV anc? V of the Act.

A c t but i t is n o t clear: when he did so. . .

. -

tha t the contcnts of an advcrtiscn-.ent w e r e misl.ead.ing,

that complaint should be irrmediately referred t o the

person o r persons whose duty it was to takc precaut ions

t o avoid contravention of the Act. Further, the obvious

precaution of i n s i s t i n g upon adver-tisef's ve r i fy ing the

factual cont.cnt of t h e i r advertisements s?loald have been

8

1975.