Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 7 December 1965

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce) (AttorneyGeneral) (12:56 PM) . - The honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) has asked me a question in relation to sub-clause (2.). I dealt with this at some length earlier today. I now recapitulate very quickly that an understanding in this sense is something which, unless covered, would enable circumvention of the Act, because a very easy way of avoiding the consequences of the Act would be to abandon an agreement but, by an understanding, to let the terms of the agreement between the parties subsist.

Mr Wilson - What is an understanding?

Mr SNEDDEN - That is an understanding. An implied understanding exists in circumstances to which I referred earlier today. Unfortunately, the " Hansard " staff has taken the relevant document from me in order to incorporate in "Hansard" the passage that I read from the report of the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Practices in the United Kingdom for the period from 1st July 1961 to 30th June 1963. He quoted from a decision by Lord Justice Diplock in which the circumstances in which there is an understanding were clearly set out.

The example given there was as follows: Party A said: " I propose to sell my goods at X price ". He then let it be known to party B that he proposed to sell his goods at that price, and party B let it be known that he - that is party B - proposed to sell his goods at the same price. Each of them has an understanding - of course, it could extend beyond two people to a number of people - to sell at the same price. That is an understanding and it is implied as between them.

Amendment negatived.

Suggest corrections