Zaslavsky & 2 Ors v Crasti & Anor [2004] NSWSC 620

Zaslavsky & 2 Ors v Crasti & Anor [2004] NSWSC 620

The appeal failed because the plaintiffs did not plead or prove the contractual obligations they sought to rely upon, there was no evidence or finding of consideration or intention to contract in the alleged subsequent agreement, and the Magistrate's conclusions that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct were open on the evidence. Thus, no error of law was demonstrated.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Paul Zaslavsky; Second Plaintiff: Serge Golman; Third Plaintiff: Lidcombe Plastering Services Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Leo Crasti; Second Defendant: Paltrust Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders of Magistrate affirmed; costs to defendants.
Legal Topics
Appeal From Local Court, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw) S 42, Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52
Contract Law Misrepresentation Commercial Law Appeal From Local Court Breach of Contract Fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw) S 42 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Zaslavsky

First Plaintiff

Serge Golman

Second Plaintiff

Lidcombe Plastering Services Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Leo Crasti

First Defendant

Paltrust Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Magistrate erred in law in finding no breach of contract by defendant
  2. 2 Whether there was a subsequent agreement or variation for repayment of monies
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation or misleading/deceptive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the plaintiffs did not plead or prove the contractual obligations they sought to rely upon, there was no evidence or finding of consideration or intention to contract in the alleged subsequent agreement, and the Magistrate's conclusions that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct were open on the evidence. Thus, no error of law was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders of Magistrate affirmed; costs to defendants.

Orders

  • The orders of Magistrate Truscott dated 18 February 2003 are affirmed.
  • The appeal is dismissed.