Page:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Valve Corporation (No 3).pdf/42

 Conclusion on the first issue

125 In summary, Valve's submissions on this first issue must be rejected for these textual, contextual, purposive, and policy reasons. As Buchanan JA said in The Society of Lloyd's v White [2004] VSCA 101 [19], in a dispute about jurisdiction but in remarks which are equally applicable in this case:

(2) Issue 2: Whether there was a "supply of goods"

126 The second issue is whether there was a "supply of goods" by Valve. Valve accepted that if "goods" were provided by it to consumers then the goods had been "supplied" (ts 218). The question of whether there was a "supply of goods" can, and (in light of the statutory definitions) should, be considered as a single question.

The proper approach to the definitions of goods and services

127 Section 2(1) of the Australian Consumer Law defines "goods" with an inclusive definition in the following way:

128 The definition of "goods" is inclusive. It supplements the ordinary meaning of "goods": ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460, 468 (the Court). The definition emphasises an important aspect of a "good". That aspect is sometimes described in theoretical studies as "thinghood": eg Penner J, The Idea of Property in Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997). The legal meaning of "goods" can be analogised to the strict definition of "property" which is "a description of a legal relationship with a thing":