Briefly describe the nature of TPG’s advertising which ACCC considered to be defective [3 marks] 2 What statutory provisions did ACCC allege that TPG’s advertising contravened [2 marks] 3 What were the findings (conclusions) of the primary judge about the following aspects of the advertising [3 marks total]  bundling  the set up fee  single price 4 What were the differences between the approach of the Full Court and the approach of the primary judge in evaluating whether the TPG advertising was misleading? [2 marks] 5 The High Court concluded that the approach taken by the Full Court was not correct. For what reason or reasons did the High Court come to this conclusion? [2 marks] 6 The Full Court, in coming to its conclusions, applied as a precedent the ratio in a case called Parkdale Custom Built Furniture v Puxu (“Puxu”). The High Court said that the Full Court wrongly applied the precedent in Puxu. Explain in what ways the High Court thought the advertising in Puxu was different from the TPG advertising and so should not have been used by the Full Court as a precedent. [2 marks] 7 What did the High Court say about the assumed level of knowledge in TPG’s target audience? [2 marks]