Clark Equipment Australia Ltd v. Covcat Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 96

Clark Equipment Australia Ltd v. Covcat Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 96

The appellant's conduct in making representations as to the suitability and capacity of the machine was misleading and deceptive in breach of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and those representations induced the respondents to enter the lease agreement. Contractual exclusion clauses do not defeat liability under the statute.

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Clark Equipment Australia Limited; First Respondent/first Cross Appellant: Covcat Pty Limited; Second Respondent/second Cross Appellant: Carl Ross Covington; Third Respondent/third Cross Appellant: Lorraine Fay Covington; Second Cross Respondent: Clark Equipment Credit of Australia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Representations as to Capacity of Goods, Inducement to Contract, Damages Under Trade Practices Act
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Representations as to Capacity of Goods Inducement to Contract Damages Under Trade Practices Act

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clark Equipment Australia Limited

Appellant/cross Respondent

Covcat Pty Limited

First Respondent/first Cross Appellant

Carl Ross Covington

Second Respondent/second Cross Appellant

Lorraine Fay Covington

Third Respondent/third Cross Appellant

Clark Equipment Credit of Australia Limited

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether representations as to the suitability and capacity of the machine were made and relied upon
  3. 3 Whether respondent was induced to enter into the lease agreement by the alleged representations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct in making representations as to the suitability and capacity of the machine was misleading and deceptive in breach of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and those representations induced the respondents to enter the lease agreement. Contractual exclusion clauses do not defeat liability under the statute.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal be dismissed with no order as to costs.