Sheppard, A.R. & Anor v. Noyes Brothers Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 311

Sheppard, A.R. & Anor v. Noyes Brothers Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 311

The respondent's false representation as to the model year and engine power of the vehicle contravened s.53(a) of the Trade Practices Act, entitling the applicants to damages for the difference in value between the price paid and the actual value of the vehicle at the time of sale, together with some small consequential losses. Claims for notional lost profits and costs of modifying another vehicle were not recoverable as the losses did not flow directly from the contravention and were not suffered 'by' that conduct.

Parties
Applicant: Alan Ronald Shepherd; Applicant: Glenda May Shepherd; Respondent: Noyes Bros. Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under Trade Practices Act / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants
Legal Topics
False Representation, Measure of Damages, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Trade Practices False Representation Measure of Damages Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Ronald Shepherd

Applicant

Glenda May Shepherd

Applicant

Noyes Bros. Pty. Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief Under Trade Practices Act / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent falsely represented the model year and engine power of a Volvo F86 prime mover in contravention of s.53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Proper measure of damages for the established contravention

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's false representation as to the model year and engine power of the vehicle contravened s.53(a) of the Trade Practices Act, entitling the applicants to damages for the difference in value between the price paid and the actual value of the vehicle at the time of sale, together with some small consequential losses. Claims for notional lost profits and costs of modifying another vehicle were not recoverable as the losses did not flow directly from the contravention and were not suffered 'by' that conduct.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicants against the respondent in the sum of $4,500.00