ACCC obtains declaration against Director of Info4pc

The Federal Court has declared that Mr James Hamilton Rae was knowingly concerned in bait advertising, accepting payment without intending to supply, and misleading or deceptive conduct carried out by Info4pc Pty Ltd in relation to the advertising of computers at cheap prices. The conduct was declared, by consent, to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Mr Rae was also ordered to pay $12,165 as a contribution towards the ACCC's costs. Info4PC was deregistered on 14 January 2003 and was no longer a party to the proceedings.

From around September 2000 to January 2001 Info4pc advertised computers at $299 and/or $499 in The West Magazine, Australian PC World and on its website.  In the advertisements Info4pc claimed it would supply new computers to consumers at the advertised price in exchange for a commitment by the consumer to complete a lifestyle questionnaire of 20 questions a month for two years. Info4pc also represented on its website that it was able to offer computers worth $1500 at the advertised price as data obtained from the completed lifestyle questionnaires was valuable and would be sold to third parties.

The court found that Info4pc had accepted payment for computers from approximately 3,000 consumers when, in fact, it had not secured funding for or supply of sufficient computers to enable it to fulfil orders from those consumers. In total, not more than 250 computers were supplied by Info4pc.
The court accepted Info4PC had contravened sections 52, 56 and 58 of the Act and Mr Rae's admission that he was knowingly concerned in those contraventions.

In July 2002, the Federal Court found that Info4PC and Mr Rae were in contempt of court after they breached court orders restraining Info4pc from making withdrawals from its bank account and from making payments to directors. The court further held that Info4pc had breached an order restraining it from advertising computers and computer upgrades. Info4pc was fined a total of $10,000 in respect of both contempts and Mr Rae was fined $4,000. Mr Rae was also ordered to pay $37,835 costs.