The Builders Warehouse Group Ltd t/as Campbells Hardware & Timber v Multinail Australia Pty Ltd Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v The Builders Warehouse Group Ltd t/as Campbells Hardware & Timber [1998] FCA 314

The Builders Warehouse Group Ltd t/as Campbells Hardware & Timber v Multinail Australia Pty Ltd Multinail Australia Pty Ltd v The Builders Warehouse Group Ltd t/as Campbells Hardware & Timber [1998] FCA 314

The appeal failed because it was open to the trial judge to reject Mr Robertson's evidence about the alleged agreement representations, to apply Jones v Dunkel to the appellant's unexplained failure to call witnesses in its camp who could have addressed the critical events, and to infer that Mr Robertson knew of the differences between the two agreements when signing the new agreement. It was also open to the trial judge, principally on contemporaneous documentation and the appellant's subsequent conduct, to find that the misleading representations about software and saws did not contribute to the appellant's decision to enter the new agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Trade Practices Act Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Proceedings / Appeal From Judgment of Drummond J Dismissing the Appellant's Claim and Entering Judgment for the Respondent on Its Cross Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'misrepresentation' 'reliance' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'exclusive Supply Agreement']
['trade Practices' 'evidence' 'contract'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'misrepresentation' 'reliance' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'exclusive Supply Agreement']

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

Appeal in Trade Practices Act Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Proceedings / Appeal From Judgment of Drummond J Dismissing the Appellant's Claim and Entering Judgment for the Respondent on Its Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in finding that Multinail did not make misleading representations as to the nature, content and operation of the new agreement.' "Whether the trial judge misapplied the principle in Jones v Dunkel in drawing inferences from the appellant's failure to call witnesses." "Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant did not rely on misleading representations about Multinail's software and truss-making machinery when entering the new agreement."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because it was open to the trial judge to reject Mr Robertson's evidence about the alleged agreement representations, to apply Jones v Dunkel to the appellant's unexplained failure to call witnesses in its camp who could have addressed the critical events, and to infer that Mr Robertson knew of the differences between the two agreements when signing the new agreement. It was also open to the trial judge, principally on contemporaneous documentation and the appellant's subsequent conduct, to find that the misleading representations about software and saws did not contribute to the appellant's decision to enter the new agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]