MacCormick, J.C. & Anor v. Nowland, H.A. & Ors [1988] FCA 81

FY Lyte Rta ee

JUDGMENT No, Ol 7 BS

'veeenee vey

CATCHWORODS

TRADE PRACTICES - misleading statements by real estate agent - representation that house made of brick whereas made of concrete blocks - representation pool at rear adjoined a park whereas 1t adjoined private property - purchaser discovered

truth between contract and settlement - whether purchasers settling reserving their rights destroyed their cause of action.

TORT - negligent misrepresentation - whether vendors' agent owed

purchasers of property a duty of care.

TORT - vicarious liability - whether vendors liable as principals for negligent acts of real estate agent.

Trade Practices Act 1974, 5.52

James Clayton MacCormick & Anor.

v. Henry Alfred Nowland & Ors. Qld G92 of 1987

PINCUS J. BRISBANE 9 MARCH 1988

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G92 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: JAMES CLAYTON MACCORMICK AND MARUSIA MACCORMICK

Applicants AND: HENRY ALFRED NOWLAND AND MAVIS JEAN NOWLAND

First Respondents

AND: CORNISH SIMES AND WILLIAMS PTY. LTD.

Second Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the respondents pay the applicants the sum of $15,000. 2. the respondents pay the applicants' costs of and

incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G92 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISTON )

BETWEEN: JAMES CLAYTON MACCORMICK AND MARUSTA MACCORMICK

Applicants AND: HENRY ALFRED NOWLAND AND MAVIS JEAN NOWLAND

First Respondents

AND: CORNISH SIMES AND WILLIAMS PTY. LTD.

Second Respondent

PINCUS J. 9 MARCH 1988

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This 18 an application for relief under the Trade Practices Act 1974, and under the general law, in respect of misleading statements said to have been made in connection with the purchase of a house. The case allustrates the need for care in advertising properties for sale. The advertisement 1n question here, although very brief, contained two misleading statements