Federal Court of Australia
1 4% 2 :
* 733
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISION
~
QLD P1481 of 1986
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) — DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RE: GARRY R. HARRIS
EX PARTE: GENERAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS Jd. DATE OF ORDER: 13 MARCH 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The matter be adjourned for hearing to Friday, 27 March 1987 at 9.45 a.m. i
Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
Poss ER 2 S MAR 1987
FEDERAL Count AUSTRALIA OT
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
RY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
GENERAL DIVISION ) QLD P1481 of 1986
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SQUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )
~
RE: GARRY R. HARRIS
EX PARTE: GENERAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
PINCUS J. 13 MARCH 1987
Ex TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This petition for a sequestration order was based on a bankruptcy notice The judament debtor seeks tc ace benind the
Judgrent debt and the matter nas been partly heara.
It appears thet early in 1985 one Robert Harris bought a motor, not from the petitioning creditor, and used it for about a year. It began to malfunction and that is said to have been due
to lack of maintenance.
Robert Harris used the motor on his farm, but he 1s said to have been absent when the trouble arose and his son, the judgment debtor, Garry Harris, contacted the vendor. Not obtaining any satisfaction there, he phoned the present petitioning creditor, the Queensland agent for the sale of the
motor.
Conversations took place about which there is no consensus. The petitioning creditor's case is that the judgment debtor agreed to buy a new motor and pay for it straightaway. The debtor says the motor was sent by way of fulfilment of a warranty
obligation.
It seems to me improbable that the petitioning creditor would have agreed to replace the old motor for no charge, when it had no means of knowing whether the original motor had been deficient when sold. On the other hand, there is a degree of improbability about the petitioning creditor's case. It is said the judgment debtor, Garry Harris, who asked for the new motor, was thought to be the same person as the R. Harris to whom the new motor was sent. It 1s, possibly, more likely that Garry Harris did not claim to be R. Harris and that, when the petitioning creditor agreed to send the new motor, 1t made no assumption that
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