Bosnich, A. v Bailey & Cartwright Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 549

Bosnich, A. v Bailey & Cartwright Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 549

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that either respondent breached s.52 or s.53A of the Trade Practices Act, as any statement about future rents was an opinion not an actionable misrepresentation. The applicant repudiated the contract and the first respondent was entitled to forfeit the deposit.

Parties
Applicant: Anton Bosnich; First Respondent: Bailey and Cartwright (Holdings) Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Peter Highland Real Estate Pty Limited trading as Richardson and Wrench, Hurstville
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; cross-action upheld.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Sale of Business Premises, Statements During Negotiations, Statements of Opinion as to Future Rents, Repudiation of Contract, Forfeiture of Deposit
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Contract Law Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Sale of Business Premises Statements During Negotiations Statements of Opinion as to Future Rents Repudiation of Contract +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anton Bosnich

Applicant

Bailey and Cartwright (Holdings) Pty Limited

First Respondent

Peter Highland Real Estate Pty Limited trading as Richardson and Wrench, Hurstville

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 and s.53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether statements regarding future rental were actionable
  3. 3 Whether applicant repudiated contract and whether deposit should be forfeited

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that either respondent breached s.52 or s.53A of the Trade Practices Act, as any statement about future rents was an opinion not an actionable misrepresentation. The applicant repudiated the contract and the first respondent was entitled to forfeit the deposit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; cross-action upheld.

Orders

  • The application by the applicant be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay each of the respondents' costs.