Polgardy, Sandor Istvan v Australian Guarantee Corp Ltd [1981] FCA 31

CATCHWORDS Trade Practices - implied conditions in hire purchase agreement ~ rescission - ss.71(1) and (2), 75A Trade Practices Act 1974 Federal Court - jurisdiction to grant rescission of hire purchase agreement and to make declaration in regard thereto "in relation to a matter arising under this Act" -

ss. 75A, 82, 86, 163A Trade Practices Act 1974.

SANDOR ISTVAN POLGARDY v. AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED

W.A. G.19 of 1980 CORAM: TOOHEY J.

48 March 1981 DARWIN

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W.A. G.19 of 1980

wee

GENERAL DIVISION

'

IN THE MATTER of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as amended

SANDOR ISTVAN POLGARDY

Applicant

and

AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM TOOHEY J.

18 warch 1981

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings illustrate some of the problems

that continue to arise concerning the jurisdiction of the

Federal Court, particularly under the Trade Practices Act 1974. In September 1979 the applicant Mr. Polgardy entered

into a hire purchase agreement with the respondent Australian

Guarantee Corporation Limited in respect of a Lamborghini

Jarama car, the cash price of which was $40,000.

ee

The applicant contends that the goods were not of merchantable quality nor reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required Relying upon the implied

conditions in s.71(1) and (2) of the Trade Practices Act,

read with s.75A, he gave notice rescinding the agreement. In his application to this Court, as originally filed,

Mr. Polgardy sought a declaration that the hire purchase agreement had been rescinded by him, the return of a Lincoln Continental car traded in as part of the agreement or payment of $13,000 in lieu, the repayment of $1769.62, instalments paid under the contract, and damages.

Late last year, following the decision in Zalai v.