Australian Unit Administration Pty Ltd v Tudor Computer Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 195

Australian Unit Administration Pty Ltd v Tudor Computer Systems Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 195

Pincus J found on a prima facie basis that Mr Whitmee made the relevant statements on behalf of both respondents, that the statement of claim sufficiently alleged representations of present fact, and that the evidence sufficiently supported an inference that the representations were untrue when made, so that the respondents were liable to the applicant as for breach of ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act. However, the repurchase or rescission relief claimed could not succeed on the evidence because the applicant acquired the goods by lease rather than by purchase from the respondents, and damages could not be assessed without evidence of value. The further hearing was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 Alleging Misleading Statements About a Computer System and Seeking Repurchase or Damages / Ex Tempore Reasons at Trial After Respondents Did Not Appear; Further Hearing Adjourned
Outcome
Further hearing of the trial adjourned to a date to be fixed; costs of the two hearing days to be costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['misleading Representations' 'sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'representations of Present Fact' 'relief and Damages' 'adjournment']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading Representations' 'sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'representations of Present Fact' 'relief and Damages' 'adjournment']

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

Application Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 Alleging Misleading Statements About a Computer System and Seeking Repurchase or Damages / Ex Tempore Reasons at Trial After Respondents Did Not Appear; Further Hearing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statements relied on were made on behalf of one or both respondents' 'Whether the pleaded representations were representations of existing fact for the purposes of ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'Whether the evidence supported a prima facie inference that the representations were untrue when made' 'Whether the applicant could obtain rescission or repurchase relief where the evidence showed it acquired the goods by lease rather than purchase' 'Whether damages could be assessed without evidence of the value of the equipment']

Ratio Decidendi

Pincus J found on a prima facie basis that Mr Whitmee made the relevant statements on behalf of both respondents, that the statement of claim sufficiently alleged representations of present fact, and that the evidence sufficiently supported an inference that the representations were untrue when made, so that the respondents were liable to the applicant as for breach of ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act. However, the repurchase or rescission relief claimed could not succeed on the evidence because the applicant acquired the goods by lease rather than by purchase from the respondents, and damages could not be assessed without evidence of value. The further hearing was therefore...

Court Disposition

Further hearing of the trial adjourned to a date to be fixed; costs of the two hearing days to be costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The further hearing of the trial be adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar on application to him.' "The costs of yesterday's hearing and today be costs in the proceedings."]