Mullard, Alisa Maude v Esanda Ltd [1984] FCA 113

Mullard, Alisa Maude v Esanda Ltd [1984] FCA 113

The applicant failed to establish that the alleged representations were made. The Court accepted Mr Zorzo's evidence and the internal evidence from the guarantee and roneo production process, rejected the applicant's account that she signed blank sheets later completed by the respondent, and found that the guarantee was executed in its present form. The application was therefore dismissed. On the cross-claim, the certificate of amount owing was not shown to be inaccurate, so the respondent was entitled to judgment for $56,123.77.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1984
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 for Declaration That a Contract of Guarantee Was Void Ab Initio, With Respondent's Cross Claim on the Guarantee / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment for the respondent on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['false or Misleading Statement' 'guarantee' 'void Ab Initio' 'cross Claim for Debt' 'prima Facie Certificate of Amount Owing']
['trade Practices' 'contract Law'] ['false or Misleading Statement' 'guarantee' 'void Ab Initio' 'cross Claim for Debt' 'prima Facie Certificate of Amount Owing']

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 for Declaration That a Contract of Guarantee Was Void Ab Initio, With Respondent's Cross Claim on the Guarantee / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent, by its agent Mr Zorzo, made the alleged representations about how the guarantee would be completed and the applicant's rights if the lessees defaulted." 'Whether any such representations were false or misleading within the Trade Practices Act 1974 so as to justify declaring the guarantee void ab initio under s 87.' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to recover the amount claimed under the guarantee on its cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the alleged representations were made. The Court accepted Mr Zorzo's evidence and the internal evidence from the guarantee and roneo production process, rejected the applicant's account that she signed blank sheets later completed by the respondent, and found that the guarantee was executed in its present form. The application was therefore dismissed. On the cross-claim, the certificate of amount owing was not shown to be inaccurate, so the respondent was entitled to judgment for $56,123.77.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judgment for the respondent on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'There be judgment for the respondent upon its cross-claim in the sum of $56,123.77.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the application and the cross-claim.']