Guthrie v Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited - [1977] FCA 74

B R I z E 2 E ........ ......	IJISTRICT W G I S T X	)	B XL>.	.228..	of	3.976
1

GEmRAL ........ ....

T,I~~ISICF

In the matter

of:

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

1974

TERENCE. JAMES. .GUTHRIE..	.....
........ ........ ........ ........

........ ........ .?I?f9.EQWf..

...

W?.rn&53.b .TPbP.C*STF.GS. ......

QYE.W'SW .&?MITE?. ........ ..

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

Defendant

'?W3 CVJRT ORDERS T!UiJ?:

1. The defendant company is convicted.

2. The defendant company is to pay a penalty of $2,000 (two thousand dollars).

I	3. The defendant cornpan$ is to pay the lpformant's costs.
i
Date Entered:

I N THE FEDERAL COURT )

B. No. 228 of 1976

OF AUSTRALIA

)

GENERilL DIVISIOW

I n the matter of -

THE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

B E T W E E N :

TERENCCE

J M l E S GUTHRIE

Informant

- and -	I .
i

UNIVERSAL

TELECASTERS

QUEENSLAETD LIMITED

D e f e n d a n t

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

ST.JOHN J.

WEDNESDAY, 1 2 OCTOBER, 1977.

BRISBANE

The defendant company is charged that

It did In contraventlon

of Section 53(e) of the Trade

Practices Act 1974, in trade

or commerce, in connsction wlth the promotion by

advertismg

. I

of the supply

of goods, to wit Falcon motor cars, make

misleading statements concerning the existence

of price

reductions, the said misleadlng statements being made

in and by an advertisement published and screened by the

Television Station

TVQ Channel 0 at Brisbane in the said

State, the said statements being misleading in that the

said statements

contamed the words and sentences,

"Dr. Jim's lovely tax cuts are guaranteed till only April

3 0 , so if ycu haven't been out to Metro Ford by then

you could be

a deadset April

Fool. Metro Ford offer

immediate delivery of automatic Falcon

500 sedans that

save you

$335.00.

If you don't take dellvery by Aprll

you're up for an extra

335 bucks In tax.".

It was alleged, by way

of particulars, that the statements

were misleading in that the words meant that the existence

of a reduction In prxe in such vehicles would not continue

after 30 April, 1975 so that a purchaser after that date

would have to pay an additional

$335 in sales tax on

such a vehicle whereas the true position was that

reduction in price was to continue though at

a reduced

amount.

I have already given judgment in two prosecutions relating

to the

same advertisement in Terence James Guthrie

v Metro

Ford Pty. Llmlted

B. No.224 of 1976 and Terence James

./2

Guthrie v Doyle Dane

& Bernbach Pty. Llmited B.

No.226 of

1976. i

In those judgments

I dealt \nth the lssues of the

misleading nature

of the advertisement and the argument

that the statement was not one

concernmg the existence

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Guthrie v Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1977] FCA 74
Decision Date: 12 Oct 1977

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guthrie v Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited involves an allegation that the defendant company contravened Section 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making misleading statements about price reductions in an advertisement for Falcon motor cars. The advertisement in question was broadcast by TVQ Channel 0 in Brisbane. The court was required to decide whether the advertisement was misleading and, if so, whether the defendant company had a valid defence under Sections 85(1) and 85(3) of the Act.

The court found that the advertisement was misleading as it suggested that a price reduction would not continue beyond April 30, 1975, when in fact it was set to continue albeit at a reduced amount. The court also rejected the defendant company's argument that the misleading statement was made by another party and not by the defendant itself. The court held that Section 85(3) of the Act makes it clear that repeating a misleading statement made by another party can still constitute an offence. Additionally, the court found that the defendant company had not exercised due diligence in investigating a complaint about the advertisement, which meant they had reason to suspect the advertisement would amount to a contravention of the Act.

The court concluded that the defendant company was guilty of the offence and ordered the company to pay a penalty of $2,000, as well as the informant's costs. The final orders included the conviction of the defendant company, a penalty payment, and the payment of the informant's costs.

Orders