Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Madison Constructions Pty Ltd v Empire Building Group (ACT) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 381 Citation: Madison Constructions Pty Ltd v Empire Building Group (ACT) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 381
Parties: MADISON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 090 649 844) v EMPIRE BUILDING GROUP (ACT) PTY LTD (ACN 129 149 079)
File number: ACD 28 of 2012
Judge: RARES J
Date of judgment: 23 March 2012
Catchwords: REAL PROPERTY – conditions required to be included in contract for sale of residential property by s 11(1) of Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003 (ACT) – right of purchaser to rescission or damages where contract contains an error in the description of the property – whether change of name or branding of development of home units could constitute an error in the description of the property pursuant to s 11(1)(h) – whether the description of the property in s 11(1)(h) identifies the land, property or title to the land sold Held: the words "error in description" in s 11(1)(h) refers to the land, property or title to the land sold
Legislation: Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003 (ACT) s 11(1)(h), (i) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law s 18
Cases cited: Ackers v Austcorp International Ltd [2009] FCA 432 applied Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 applied Beecham Group v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618 applied BM Auto Sales Pty Limited v Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Limited (1976) 12 ALR 363 applied Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co. Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 851 applied Campomar Sociedad Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45 applied Commercial Union Insurance Company of Australia Limited v Ferrcom Pty Limited (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 applied Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 162 FCR 466 applied ENRC Marketing AG v OJSC "Magnitorgorsk Metallurgical Kombinat" [2011] FCA 1371 applied Gough v South Sky Investments Pty Limited [2011] QSC 361 distinguished Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 applied Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199 applied Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 664 applied Travinto Nominees Pty Limited v Vlattas (1973) 129 CLR 1 applied
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