Norco Co-operative v Dianne Russell [2007] NSWDC 68

Norco Co-operative v Dianne Russell [2007] NSWDC 68

Russell and Cohen failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the pig feed was in the spoiled condition alleged when it arrived in Pohnpei. In any event, even if deterioration occurred, the evidence did not establish that it was attributable to Norco's manufacture or delivery of the goods for shipment. Under the FAS contract Norco's responsibility ended when the goods were delivered to the port for shipment, and Russell and Cohen did not counter possible causes of deterioration during the voyage or after arrival. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to judgment for the unpaid price, and the cross-claim failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Unpaid Price of Goods and Cross Claim Arising From Sale of Pig Feed for Export / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for Norco on the claim; verdict and judgment for Norco as cross-defendant on the cross-claim; costs awarded against Dianne Russell as defendant/cross-claimant.
Legal Topics
['international Sale of Goods' 'fas Contracts' 'merchantable Quality' 'fitness for Purpose' 'sale by Description' 'responsibility for Condition of Goods in Transit' 'cross Claim for Loss of Profits']
['sale of Goods' 'contract' 'trade Practices' 'fair Trading' 'negligence' 'evidence'] ['international Sale of Goods' 'fas Contracts' 'merchantable Quality' 'fitness for Purpose' 'sale by Description' 'responsibility for Condition of Goods in Transit' 'cross Claim for Loss of Profits']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Unpaid Price of Goods and Cross Claim Arising From Sale of Pig Feed for Export / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pig feed pellets were in the spoiled condition alleged by Russell and Cohen when they arrived at Pohnpei.' 'If the pig feed pellets were in that condition, whether that condition was the responsibility of Norco.' 'Whether Norco breached implied warranties or conditions under the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), including merchantable quality and fitness for purpose.' 'Whether Russell and Cohen established any basis for misleading or deceptive conduct, consumer protection, unconscionable conduct, breach of contract or negligence claims.']

Ratio Decidendi

Russell and Cohen failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the pig feed was in the spoiled condition alleged when it arrived in Pohnpei. In any event, even if deterioration occurred, the evidence did not establish that it was attributable to Norco's manufacture or delivery of the goods for shipment. Under the FAS contract Norco's responsibility ended when the goods were delivered to the port for shipment, and Russell and Cohen did not counter possible causes of deterioration during the voyage or after arrival. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to judgment for the unpaid price, and the cross-claim failed.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for Norco on the claim; verdict and judgment for Norco as cross-defendant on the cross-claim; costs awarded against Dianne Russell as defendant/cross-claimant.

Orders

  • ["Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the plaintiff's claim in the sum of $19,721.95 together with interest from 1 November 2001 to the date of judgment." 'Verdict and judgment for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.' 'The defendant/cross-claimant pay the costs of the plaintiff/cross-defendant.']