W.T.H. Pty Ltd trading as Avis Australia v Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 387
Federal Court of Australia
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
Catchwords
Trade Practices - television commercial referring to earlier rates
and terms of hire published subsequent to price change -
misleading and deceptive conduct.
Trade Practices Act 1974 s.54
W.T.H. Pty Limited trading as Avis Australia v.
Budget Rentacar System Pty. Limited trading as Budget Rent-A-Car.
G143 of 1987
Sweeney, J.
Sydney
23 July, 1987
yas
22SUL1I987 0 ba
\
—\ FEDERAL COUNT OF, /
ws AUSTRALIA AS
vo £37 AL
\ fé fete oar 4
, a Z
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G143 of 1987
)
)
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN:
THE COURT
W.T.H. PTY. LIMITED trading as
AVIS AUSTRALIA Applicant
BUDGET RENTACAR SYSTEM PTY. LIMITED
trading as BUDGET RENT-A-CAR Respondent
THE COURT: Sweeney J.
PLACE : Sydney
DATE
: 23 July, 1987
MINUTE OR ORDER
ORDERS THAT: -
each
party be relieved from further compliance with its
undertaking given on 14 April 1987;
the respondent by itself its servants and agents he
restrained' from-
(a)
televising or otherwise publicizing an
advertisement in the form of that exhibited as
"DMV1" to the affidavit of Diane Mary Vandervalk
sworn on 13th April, 1987 and filed herein so as to
represent that:
Note:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
The rental rate under the applicant's "Super
Saver" programme for a three week hire of a
Holden Gemini class motor vehicle is more than
$29.00 per day;
{ii) A three week period of hire of that class of
vehicle under that programme is necesssary
before a customer obtains a rental rate of
$29.00 per day or less.
The respondent pay the applicant's costs of these
proceedings, including any reserved costs
Liberty to apply to any Judge of the Court on two
days notice be reserved to each party
Exhibits be returned unless an appeal is lodged
within 21 days.
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH
WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G143 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION
—~— ee rer ~~
BETWEEN: W.T.H. PTY. LIMITED trading as
AND
This
Australia
AVIS AUSTRALIA Applicant
BUDGET RENTACAR SYSTEM PTY. LIMITED
trading as BUDGET RENT-A-CAR Respondent
THE COURT: Sweeney J.
PLACE
Sydney
DATE
23 July, 1987
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
is an application by W.T.H. Pty Limited, trading as Avis
("Avis") against Budget Rentacar System Pty Limited,
trading as Budget Rent-A-Car ("Budget"), seeking the following
relief:-
1.
A declaration that the television advertisement
published on Channel 9 in Sydney at 9.05am on Monday 13
April 1987 constitutes conduct which is misleading or
deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive contrary to
the provisions of Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act
1974 (as amended) ("the Act").
An order pursuant to Section 80 of the Act or
alternatively an order restraining the Respondent by
itself, its servants and agents from republishing the
advertisement.
An order pursuant to Section 80 of the Act or
alternatively an order restraining the Respondent by
itself, its servants and agents from engaging in conduct
that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead
or deceive contrary to the provisions of Section 52 of
the Act and, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, from publishing or causing to be published
the following or any similar statements:
"Even if you used the Avis Super Saver for
three weeks or more you'd pay more than that".
"$29.00 per day - for 4 days or more"
in the context in which these statements
appeared in the television advertisement or in
the context of any advertisement in the same
form or to the same effect.
Such further order, (including orders' for
corrective advertising) pursuant to Section 87
of the Act (as amended) as the court may deem
fit.
An order restraining the Respondent from
aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring or
being in any way directly or indirectly
concerned in or ae party to the conduct
specified in the orders above.
Such further or other orders as the court may
deem fit.
7. Costs".
At an anterlocutory hearing on 14 April 1987 Budget
undertook that it would not until further order publish or cause
to be published any statement in the terms as set out in paragraph
3 above. At the same time Avis gave the usual undertaking as to
damages.
The circumstances in which the commercial complained of was
published were as follows:-
1. in the period immediately preceding the date of
publication there was intense price competition between
Avis and Budget in the car hire market, particularly in
relation to the Avis "Super Saver" and the Budget
"Dollar Driver" rates;
2. as from 29 March 1987 an advertisement was broadcast and
published on behalf of Avis offering its Super Saver
rates at a maximum discount of 30%, with a minimum rate
of $33.00 for category B vehicles (which included Ford
Laser and Holden Gemini vehicles) for a period of rental
of 21 days or more;
3. on 6 April 1987 Avis decided to reduce its Super Saver
Rate to $29.
4. on 6 or 7 April 1987 Budget responded by reducing its
Dollar Driver rate from $33 to $29, for four days or
more.
5. on 9 April 1987 the solicitors for Avis advised the
solicitors for Budget that Avis had reduced its rate for
Laser cars to $28.00 per day effective from that date
and repeated an objection contained in a letter of 7
April 1987 to the Budget commercial, which is later set
out, alleging that it was false and misleading;
Avis on 9 April 1987 reduced its lowest rate to $28.00
per day for three days or more, and on the following day
Budget responded by instructing "its corporate and
licensee rental stations to offer as and from 10 April,
1987 Gemini motor vehicles at $28.00 per day or one
dollar less than the comparable rate offered by the
applicant or Hertz Australia pty. Ltd. whichever was the
lower for four or more days hire";
on 9 April 1987 Budget instructed its advertising agency
"to prepare another television commercial in a form
which would not be affected by further reductions in the
applicant's rental rate for Laser motor vehicles";
this new television commercial was approved by the
Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations
on 10 April 1987 and copies of the commercial "were sent
to all participating television stations with
instructions to immediately exchange it" for a
television commercial comparing the Budget rate of
$29.00 per day for 4 or more days with the Avis rate of
$33.00 per day from 21 days or more hire which had been
shown prior to that date, and to destroy that earlier
commercial;
by reason of the manner in which television stations
Prepare their programs and insert commercials in then,
these instructions proved not to be immediately
effective, and at 9.05 a.m. on 13 April there appeared
on Channel 9, Sydney, the Budget commercial, the text of
which was as follows:-
"While Budget continues to bring you new
innovative products like Plan-Ahead, Freedom
Checks, Credit Cards and Home Delivery we
still know what made us top. To prove it we
are introducing Dollar Driver rates. Now you
can rent our Holden Gemini for as low as
$29.00 a day (on screen $29.00 per day - for 4
days or more). Even if you used the Avis
Super Saver for three weeks you'd pay more
than that, which is why I'm wearing their
shirt. Budget's Dollar Driver rates will
always drive your dollar further (on screen
Budget Rent-a-Car drives your dollar
further)".
The commercial expressly stated that the Avis Super Saver
rate was more than $29.00 per day. It referred to the Budget
Dollar Driver rate as "$29.00 per day - for 4 days or more" and
went on to say - "even if you used the Avis Super Saver for three
weeks you'd pay more than that". In addition, the implication was
clear that, whereas you could enjoy the budget rate of $29 if you
hired for 4 days or more, you would need to hire the avis car for
three weeks to qualify for its super saver rate.
Avis decided on 9 April 1987 to reduce its Supersaver Rate
from $33 to $28. Advice of that decision was telexed on 9 April
to State Managers, State Sales Managers, State Franchise Managers
and other Avis officers.
There was some challenge by Budget to the speed and
efficiency with which superseded Avis publicity material was
removed from its stations, but it was shown, for example, that
relevant hiring transactions were taking place at Melbourne
Airport from 9 April at $28 per day. On the balance of
probabilities I am satisfied that Avis cars at the Super Saver
rate of $28 per day were widely available before the Budget
commercial appeared on 13 April 1987, and that there was no
requirement by Avis that its cars must be hired for a period of
three weeks before the Super Saver rate applied.
In my opinion, each of the challenged statements in the
commercial constituted conduct which was misleading or deceptive
or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of s.52 of the
Act. Budget continued to defend the impugned commercial to the
bitter end and the case is one in which injunctive relief is
appropriate.
The Court orders that:-
1. each party be relieved from further compliance with its
undertaking given on 14 April 1987;
2. the respondent by itself its servants and agents be
restrained from-
(a) televising or otherwise publicizing an
advertisement in the form of that exhibited as
"DMV" to the affidavit of Diane Mary Vandervalk
sworn on 13th April, 1987 and filed herein so as to
represent that:
(i) The rental rate under the applicant's "Super
Saver" programme for a three week hire of a
Holden Gemini class motor vehicle is more than
(b)
(c)
(da)
$29.00 per day;
(ii) A three week period of hire of that class of
vehicle under that programme is necesssary
before a customer obtains a rental rate of
$29.00 per day or less.
The respondent pay the applicant's costs of these
proceedings, including any reserved costs.
Liberty to apply to any Judge of the Court on two
days notice be reserved to each party.
Exhibits be returned unless an appeal is lodged
within 21 days.
I certify that this and the
preceding six (6) pages are a
true copy of the Reasons for
Judgment herein of the
Honourable Mr. Justice Sweeney
Dated: 23 July, 1987
am
ae
ee ee et
Associate
VG 143 of 1987
Counsel for the Applicant:
Solicitors for the Applicant:
Counsel for the Respondent:
Solicitors for the Respondent:
Date of hearing: 10 June, 1987
Mr. J.C. Kelly
Freehill,
Page
Mr. D.M. Yates
Corrs,
Byrne
Hollingdale
Pavey
Whiting
&
&