Federal Court of Australia
al eee
*
FO eet ee ate ee ee oe
CATCUWORDS
+
Trade Practices Act ~- whether representations mede by the respondent to the applicants constituted misleading anda Geccptive conduct - whether such representations falsely represented that services were of a particular kind - whether such representations constituted false or misleeding statements concerning the characteristics of land, the use to which it was capable of being put or the existence or avoilapility of facilities associated with the land - whether loss or damage suffered pursuant to s.87 of the Trade Practices Act - what is the time with respect to which loss or damage should be ascertained for s.87 relief to be
avallap_e,
Trade Practices Act 1974 ss.52, 53{aa), 53A and 87
JORN Wii DsMITH and PAMELA JOAN WILDSMITH v. DAINFORD LIMITED
VG No. 6 of 1983
Smithers J.
11 Noverber 1983 :
Melbourne.
saaye
eed ake
eet Neen mk oa!
Oe ee eee
we ee net te he att one ee
er
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
) ) } GENERAL DIVISION )
Between:
VG No. 6 of 1983
JOHN WSLDSMITH and PAMELA
[2Qu
Judge Making Order: Smithers J.
Date of Order: 11 November 1983
Where Made: Melbourne.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application to be dismissed.
2. The costs of and incidental to
paid by the applicants.
Oe et tere mene sare
JOAN WILDSMTTH
(Applicants)
DAINFORD LIMITED
the
(Respondent)
application be
wha
te te
RO en we
foe
ad
a wd at
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ; ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG No. 6 of 1983 ) )
GENERAL DIVISION
Between: JOHN WILDSMITH and PAMELA
JOAN WILDSMITH
(Applicants)
[Ea
DAINFORD LIMITED
(Respondent)
Coram: Smithers J.
11 November 19383
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
By a contract bearing the date 18 August 1981 but Signed shortly afterwards, the applicants and the respondent entered into an agreement in writing whereby the respondent agreed to sell to the applicants and the applicants agreed to purchase from the respondent a property known as Unit No. 32G being Lot 147 on a proposed building units plan and situated on level 32 of a high rise building known as "Imperial Surf", yet to be built, on The Esplanade, Surfers Paradise, in the State of Queensland for the sum of $375,000. Construction of Imperial Surf actually commenced in September 1981. In circumstances hereafter described the applicants paid a
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate