Federal Court of Australia
Act, s.52 - diamond investment and futures contracts -
whether representations were misleading puffery - disclaimers - hindsight irrelevant - measure of damages - loss of opportunity.
Chaplin v. Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786 ~ con
KHALAF AGAIBY v. DARLINGTON COMMODITIES LIMITED and DARLINGTON FUTURES LIMITED
No. G 135 of 1983
Beaumont, J. 7 March 1985. Sydney.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY No. G 135 of 1983
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN : KHALAF AGAIBY Applicant AND: DARLINGTON COMMODITIES LIMITED
First Respondent
AND: DARLINGTON FUTURES LIMITED
Second Respondent
QRDER
Judge making order: Beaumont, J. Date order made: 7 March 1985.
Where made: Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Order that the respondents pay the applicant
damages in the sum of $2,500.00.
2. Application otherwise dismissed.
i. 'der that the applicant pay four-fifths of the
respondents' costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )
NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY ) No. G 135 of 1383 )
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN : KHALAF AGAIBY Applicant AND: DARLINGTON COMMODITIES LIMITED
First Respondent
AND: DARLINGTON FUTURES LIMITED
Second Respondent
QO co is Fe
Beaumont, d.
le ra i C3 o
7 March 1985,
_ REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In these proceedings, the applicant, Khalaf Agaiby, zeeks relief against the respondents, Darlington Commodities Limited and a related corporation. Darlinaton Futures Limited, pursuant to ¢s.37 and 82 respectively of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 ("the Act") in connection with a number of transactions entered into between the applicant and the respondents involving dealings in diamonds and, subse-
quently, commodity futures contracts. The applicant also
ie)
claims damages for negligence under the general law.
Specifically, the applicant seeks an order declaring that an
agency or brokerage contract dated 13 May 1981 made between himself as principal and the second respondent as his agent or broker 1s void ab initio pursuant to s.87 of the Act and seeks an order pursuant to s.87 of the Act directing the second respondent to pay to the applicant all payments and expenses paid under the contract. Alternatively, he seeks an order pursuant to s.82 of the Act directing the second respondent to pay him the amount of loss or damage suffered by him by reason of his entry into the said contract and an order pursuant to s.87 of the Act directing the first respondent to pay him the value of certain diamonds aa at January 1981. Alternatively, the applicant seeks an order
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