Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
Trade Practices - misleading conduct - purchase of home unit - representation as to view from unit - unit building not constructed at date of contract -
subsequent erection of obstruction to view - plans available for inspection - not inspected by purchaser - whether purchaser entitled to rely upon misrepresentation
Trade Practices Act 1977, s.52
DAINFORD LIMITED v. SANROD PTY. LIMITED, HENRY JOHN JAGO and BEATRICE ELEANOR JAGO
No. 670 of 1984
CORAM: NORTHROP, MORLING and SPENDER, Jd. 12 Octcber 1984
BRISBANE.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
No. G70 of 1984
GENERAL DIVISION
JUDGES MAKING ORDER
DATE OF ORDER
BETWEEN: DAINFORD LIMITED Appellant AND: SANROD PTY. LIMITED
Pirst Respondent
AND: HENRY JOHN JAGO and BEATRICE ELEANOR JAGO
Second Respondents
ORDER
Northrop, Morling and Spender JJ.
12 October 1984
WHERE MADE Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Ll. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the respondents' costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G70 of 1984 ) GENERAL DIVISTON )
BETWEEN : DAINF'ORD LIMITED Appellant AND: SANROD PTY. LIMITED First Respondent AND: HENRY JOHN JAGO and BEATRICE ELEANOR JAGO Second Respondents CORAM: Northrop, Morling and Spender JJ. 12 October 1984
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NORTHROP J: I would ask Mr Justice Morling to express his
opinion first.
MORLING J: This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of
the Court in proceedings in which the appellant was found liable to pay damages to the first respondent arising out of misleading conduct which the learned judge found the respondent
had engaged in contrary to the provisions of s.52 of the Trade
Practices Act.
2.
The proceedings arose out of the purchase by the first respondent 'from the appellant of a home unit in a proposed building to be known as "Imperial Surf" which was to he constructed by the respondent. The second respondents, who are husband and wife, guaranteed the performance of the first respondent's obligations under the contract of purchase. The second respondents were directors of the first respondent. The orders made by the iearned trial judge included declarations that the contract of purchase and the guarantees given by the
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