Reid Lalor Sales Pty Limited v Steve Ellery Printing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDC 3

Reid Lalor Sales Pty Limited v Steve Ellery Printing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWDC 3

The plaintiff failed to prove that the printed sheets were too dark or failed to match the chromalum proof. There was no breach of contract by the defendant, no breach of implied warranty, and no misleading or deceptive conduct. Plaintiff's refusal to accept delivery was unjustified and constituted repudiation, entitling the defendant (cross-claimant) to terminate the contract and claim damages. Damages to the cross-claimant were assessed at $7,500 based on part performance and lack of complete supporting evidence.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Reid Lalor Sales Pty Limited T/as Reid Lalor Displays; Defendant/cross Claimant: Steve Ellery Screen Printing Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant on plaintiff's claim; judgment for the cross-claimant for $7,500 on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Implied Warranties, Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Damages
Contract Law Commercial Law Consumer Law Breach of Contract Repudiation Implied Warranties Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reid Lalor Sales Pty Limited T/as Reid Lalor Displays

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Steve Ellery Screen Printing Pty Ltd

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the printed sheets supplied by the defendant comply with the chromalum proof supplied by the plaintiff?
  2. 2 Were the printed sheets supplied by the defendant fit for the intended purpose and/or of merchantable quality?
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff entitled to terminate the contract based on breach?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that the printed sheets were too dark or failed to match the chromalum proof. There was no breach of contract by the defendant, no breach of implied warranty, and no misleading or deceptive conduct. Plaintiff's refusal to accept delivery was unjustified and constituted repudiation, entitling the defendant (cross-claimant) to terminate the contract and claim damages. Damages to the cross-claimant were assessed at $7,500 based on part performance and lack of complete supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant on plaintiff's claim; judgment for the cross-claimant for $7,500 on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the defendant in the plaintiff's claim.
  • Verdict and judgment for the cross-claimant in the cross claim for the amount of $7,500.