Universal Telecasters Queensland Ltd v. Guthrie1
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X7901000106 |
| Published date | 01 March 1979 |
| Date | 01 March 1979 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE NOTE
UNIVERSAL
TELECASTERS
QUEENSLAND
LTD
v.
GUTHRIEl
Trade Practices
Act
-misleading advertisement -
made
by
defendant
-liability
of
media -defences -reasonable precautions and due
diligence -attribution
of
knowledge and reason
to
suspect -
nexus
between
SSe
84(1),
(2);
85(1),
(3)
Early in April 1975 suburban Brisbane, whilst engrossed by prime
time viewing, was confronted by the
man
from Metro Ford. This
announcement was made:
Dr
Jim's lovely tax cuts are guaranteed till only April
30
··.
Metro
Ford
offer immediate delivery
of
automatic
Falcon
500
sedans
that
save you $335.00.
If
you don't take delivery by April 30
you're up for
an
extra 335 bucks in tax.
The announcement led to three prosecutions2by the
Trade
Practices
Commission
for
making false
or
misleading statements concerning the
existence of price reductions in breach
of
the original sub-section 53
(e)
of the
Trade
Practices
Act
1974
(Cth).3
At
first instance St.
John
J.,
in separate judgments, held
that
the three defendant companies had
contravened sub-section 53 (e).4
Universal Telecasters,
the
company which conducted
TVQ
Channel
0,
the television station
that
broadcast the advertisement, successfully
appealed to the Full Federal Court.
The
High
Court
refused
an
appli-
cation by the Trade Practices Commission for special leave to appeal
from the decision of the Federal Court.5
The decision of the Full
Court
and its implications will be examined.
The
Facts
During the evening
of
the advertisement's initial screening a
Mr
Paterson rang the station to complain
that
it was misleading. As no one
was available to handle the complaint he was advised to ring the
n~xt
1(1978) 18 A.L.R. 531; A.T.P.R. 17, 633; 3T.P.C. 221; T.P.R.S. 304, 209.
Federal
Court
of
Australia; Bowen C.J., Nimmo and
Franki
JJ.
2The prosecutions were brought against Metro
Ford,
the advertising company
and Universal Telecasters.
3At the time
s.
53
provided
"A
corporation shall not, in trade
or
commerce, in
connexion with the supply
or
possible supply
of
goods
or
services
or
in connexion
with the promotion by any means
of
the supply
or
use
of
goods
or
services-
(e)
make false
or
misleading statements concerning the existence of,
or
amounts
of, price reductions;"
In
1977
(e)
was widened
to
"make afalse
or
misleading statement with respect to
the price
of
goods
or
services".
4Guthrie v. Metro Ford Pty
Ltd
(1977) A.T.P.R. 17, 390; Guthrie v. Doyle
Dane &Bernbach Pty
Ltd
(1977) 16 A.L.R. 241; Guthrie v. Universal Telecasters
(Qld)
Ltd
(1977)
16
A.L.R. 247.
Ji Guthrie v. Universal Telecasters (Qld)
Ltd
(1978) A.T.P.R.
17,701.
Gibbs J.
stated
that
the Court was
"not
necessarily endorsing the views expressed in the
Federal Court".
98
To continue reading
Request your trial