NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Upintheair Pty Ltd v Business Custodians Ltd [2016] NSWCA 287 Hearing dates: 12 September 2016 Decision date: 19 October 2016 Before: McColl JA at [1] Macfarlan JA at [2] Stevenson J at [10] Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs Catchwords: CONTRACTS –– breach of contractual warranties – misleading and deceptive conduct – contractual sale of printing business – where vendor misrepresented income of the business by disguising machinery sales as printing sales in the Profit and Loss Statement ('P&L') provided to purchaser prior to completion of sale – where fictitious invoices were created by vendor to mask misrepresentation – where vendor admitted to creating some of the fictitious invoices – whether further invoices fictitious – whether purchaser relied on the representations as to income in purchasing business – CONTRACTS – interpretation – implication of terms – where contract provided that vendor loan funds to purchaser to facilitate the sale of the business – where contract provided loan amount to be repaid with interest 90 days after completion – where no provision in contract for interest payable in event of default – whether term can be implied that parties intended interest to continue to accrue at the pre 90 day rate – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - whether on proper construction of pleadings it was necessary for purchaser to prove that fictitious invoices themselves and not merely their amounts were included in the P&L Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Cases Cited: BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410; [1995] HCA 24 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169; [2014] HCA 32 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215; [1985] HCA 75 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282; [1940] HCA 43 Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 19 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Upintheair Pty Ltd (First Appellant) Jamie McKinnon (Second Appellant) Business Custodians Limited (First Respondent) Pepperprint Pty Limited (Second Respondent) Bruce Dwyer (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A F Fernon (Appellants) J J Priestley SC (Respondents)
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