Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd & Ors v Effem Foods Pty Ltd & Anor [1995] FCA 451

CATCHWORDS TRADE PRACTICES - misleading or deceptive conduct - investment and continuation of investment in fish processing company with one major customer - alleged misrepresentation by major customer to investors - whether representation made that binding contract entered into - whether representation made that fish processing company had capacity to supply in accordance with contract - whether duty to investigate, for benefit of potential investors, capacity of supplier to fulfil supply - whether representation made of exclusive contract - whether representations made as to capacity to process - whether representation made of confidence in and good relationship with fish processing company - whether representation made that there would be a long term relationship with fish processing company, involving profitability and mutuality of benefits - whether representation that respondent "looked after its suppliers" - whether representation made of payment on a cost plus basis - whether representation made that an evergreen, continuing long term relationship for the supply of fish was intended - whether representation made that respondent would source in the first instance its requirements for fish from fish processing company - whether representation made that respondent would assist in sourcing fish - whether representation made that jack mackerel was a long term need for respondent - whether representation made that proposals and investment strategy being pursued by applicant satisfactory to respondent and in accordance with arrangements made between them - whether representation made that if third and fourth applicants controlled management, then respondent would give fish processing company all the business it could handle - whether representation made that fish processing company could be assured of a long and profitable future as a supplier to respondent - whether representation made that respondent had never offered to buy fish from a certain supplier and had no intention of doing so - whether representation made that respondent would pay a price to give a return on all expenditure to date and further investment, so long as certain persons were removed from management - whether representation made that respondent would give a long term contract such as to give back investment and a profit - whether representation made that respondent's requirements for mackerel were budgeted to go up tremendously - whether representation made that respondent would give fish processing company the profits and future certainty to satisfy its bankers and repay loans - whether representation made that respondent would give more than standard twelve month contract - whether any of these representations constituted misrepresentations - whether there was reliance on any misrepresentations by applicants - whether investment would have been made if alleged representations had not been made. TRADE PRACTICES - misleading or deceptive conduct - whether misrepresentation by silence - whether silence as to interpretation of agreement constitutes misrepresentation - whether obligation to disclose intentions in relation to agreements - whether reasonable expectation of disclosure - whether silence deliberate. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Brown v Jam Factory Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 340 Taco Co of Australia Inc V Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177 Poseidon Ltd v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1991) 105 ALR 25 Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661 General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation (1993) 45 FCR 164 Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 Lam v Ausintel Investments Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 12 ATPR 50, 866 Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 470 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Ricochet Pty Ltd v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Company Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 229 Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (1988) 39 FCR 546 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337