"Falkon" <falkon@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beemkh$ddo$1@no-spam
> "The mere use, by a person not acting in the course of carrying on a
> business, of facilities commonly employed in commercial transactions,
cannot
> transform a dealing which lacks any business character into something done
> in trade or commerce": O'BRIEN v SMOLONOGOV 53 ALR 107 at 114.
> --
Which is just fine as far as it goes, and maintaining a clear focus on the
fact that this case turned on s53 of the TPA and whether or not the
activities of the defendants (at first instance) fell within its ambit.
It says nothing about liability under the various State fair trading acts
which are of course specifically aimed at the behaviour of individuals and
are thus more likely to fall upon the compass of activities undertaken at a
"swapmeet".
In that second context Hope v. Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 (a
decision of the high court) provides a better, and much wider view of what
characterises a business or commercial operation.
Tony Smith