Federal Court of Australia
wee
CATCHWURDS Trade practices - consumer protection - prosecution - ralse representation as to composition of goods ~ women s skirts - wool tibre content lower than that stated on label - whether
contravention due to reasonable reliance on intormation supplied by another person - whether defendant took reasonable precautions and cxercised due diligence to avoid contravention.
Trade Practices Sct 1974 - ss. 53a), 85
Darwin Bakery Pry. Ltd. v. Sully (1981) Si P.L.R. 90 Barton v. Croney Trading Fty. Ltd. (1984) 54 A.L.R. S4l
Yorke v. Lucas (1985) 612 A.L.R. 307 Korczynski v, Wes Lofts 'Aust.) Pty
- Ltd, (1985) 62 A.L.R. 225
LOUISE ELIZABETH WILKINSON v. KATIES FASHIONS (AU5T.1 PIY, LT.
Nos. VG56-59 of 1985.
LOUISE ELIZABETH WILKINSON v. ARPEL AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
Nos. VG60-63 of 1985
Jenkinson d. Melbourne 28 July, 1986
ey ne
7,
TITY whe
STs en gt cre roma eres? or , a es a)
nT
ror. -
til Tn FEORPAL CU0RT uF AUSTRALIA VICTORTA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAG DIVES ron
CORAM Jenkinson J. PLACE Melbourne DATE : 28 July, 1986
? » Nos. VO56-59 ot 1985
BETWEEN: GuJ1SE ELIZABETH WILE TNSON Prosecutor AND: KATIES FASHIUNS AUST.» PTy. CTD. Defendant Nos. VG60-63 of 1985 BETWEEN: GoUISE ELIZABETH WILKINSON Prosecutor AND: ARPEL AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.
Derendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Trial of eight 1nformations for offences alleged to have
been committed by contravention ot s.53(a) of the Trade
Act 1974.
All of the informations concern labels, attached to
inner surfaces
of women s
skirts.
un e@ach of the labels
Practices
the
are
omy
ee erie oer i rn -_ sy - *-
_
ee ae re
woe speere a eee vee ay —
str ry
we ng eq arse oye Pe ree ee ee
een
bu .
printed the names ot the several fibres (as, for example, wool and nylon) of which the skirt 1s composed, and opposite each name 1s printed a percentage, as "50%" or "20%" or as the case may be. Each label mis-states the proportions in which the fibres are combined to form the material of which the skirt was made. Each ot 4 pairs of the informations concerns a sale by retail of a single skirt so labelled. One of each pair 1s against Katies Fashions (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. and the other information 1s against Arpel Australia Pty. Ltd... That 1s because at relevant times the business name "Katies" was owned by those two companies and there was uncertainty as to which company was carrying on, under that business name, the retail business in the course of which the skirt was sold. That uncertainty was dispelled during the hearing and leave has been sought by the prosecutor, and will be granted,
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate