experience, there was a reasonable and proper basis on which his predictions were proffered and that he not only believed in what he said about a particular franchise’s projected performance but that there was also a proper and reasonable basis for the claims that he made … If there was reason to be cautious about accepting the accuracy of his predictions, the circumstances called for that to be clearly expressed to the recipients of his predictions. Cut-Price Deli, and its director who made the representations, were held liable for misleading or deceptive conduct and the franchisee was awarded damages based on their actual losses – the difference between the price and the value of the business at the time of purchase plus other losses, including the time and energy expended by the franchisees in operating the business for which their drawings were an inadequate recompense. On appeal the Full Federal Court reduced the damages to exclude the additional capital the franchisees had contributed to the business: Cut-Price Deli Pty Ltd v Jacques  ATPR (Digest) 46-128. Relaying false information [18.1130] Actions for breach of s 18 can be brought against persons who engaged in the misleading or deceptive conduct (or, in the case of accessorial liability, persons who were involved in another’s contravention). A particular misrepresentation may involve a number of parties who are liable as principals and not simply as accessories. In the case of a misleading advertisement prepared by an advertising agency for an advertiser and disseminated through the media, the agency, the advertiser and the media may be liable. In the case of a misleading label on goods, the manufacturer who attaches the label to the goods and the retailer who displays them may both be liable. In the case of a misleading representation in relation to the sale of a commercial property, both the vendor and the real estate agent may be liable. Whether the media, the retailer or the agent in the three examples mentioned above are liable for contravening s 18 will depend on whether that person is acting as a mere “conduit” for information provided by another which is simply relayed to its audience, or whether that person has adopted the information. In Yorke v Lucas  HCA 65, Mason ACJ, Wilson, Deane and Dawson JJ in the High Court observed (at ) that: [Corporations] cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor be excommunicated, for they have no souls. Re: Sutton’s Hospital Case (1612) 10 Co Rep 23a at 32b per Sir Edward Coke. Chapter 18 Misleading or Deceptive Conduct 871 Andrew, Terry, and Giugni Des. <i>Business & the Law</i>, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Pty Limited, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, .