C-Mac Industries (Aust) Pty Limited v Juan Carlos Invernizzi & Ors [2008] NSWDC 88

C-Mac Industries (Aust) Pty Limited v Juan Carlos Invernizzi & Ors [2008] NSWDC 88

The Court rejected the Second Defendant's evidence that the orders were cancelled, found the plaintiff's standard terms including the retention of title clause and 30-day payment term applied, and held that s 51 (2) permitted recovery of the price despite property not having passed where payment was due on a day certain. For goods not accepted, recovery was limited to proved loss under s 52 (2). Applying the guarantee and indemnity, the Second Defendant was liable for $80,438.08 plus interest of $19,715.05, producing judgment of $100,153.13.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim Under Guarantee Arising From Contracts for Sale of Goods / Final Judgment
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $100,153.13.
Legal Topics
['romalpa Clause' 'action for Price' 'damages for Non Acceptance of Goods' 'retention of Title' 'interest' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']
['contract Law' 'sale of Goods' 'guarantees and Indemnities' 'civil Procedure'] ['romalpa Clause' 'action for Price' 'damages for Non Acceptance of Goods' 'retention of Title' 'interest' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']

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

Civil Claim Under Guarantee Arising From Contracts for Sale of Goods / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff agreed to cancel the orders for goods destined for the Indiana plant.' 'Whether the plaintiff could recover the balance of the purchase price where property in goods had not passed because of a retention of title clause.' 'How damages should be quantified for goods ordered by the Debtor but not accepted or paid for.' "Whether the Second Defendant was liable under the guarantee and indemnity for amounts owed or losses caused by the Debtor's default." 'From what date interest should be awarded under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the Second Defendant's evidence that the orders were cancelled, found the plaintiff's standard terms including the retention of title clause and 30-day payment term applied, and held that s 51 (2) permitted recovery of the price despite property not having passed where payment was due on a day certain. For goods not accepted, recovery was limited to proved loss under s 52 (2). Applying the guarantee and indemnity, the Second Defendant was liable for $80,438.08 plus interest of $19,715.05, producing judgment of $100,153.13.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $100,153.13.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant in the sum of $100,153.13.' 'Direct that the exhibits be returned.']