Ripani v Century Legend Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 242

Ripani v Century Legend Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 242

The respondent, through its 'hero render' and confirming oral statements, made representations as to a substantial design feature of apartment 14.01 which were misleading and deceptive in contravention of s 18 of the ACL. The inscription 'artist impression', disclaimers, and exclusion clauses did not correct the clear impression or negate reasonable reliance. The applicants relied on the representation in entering the contract. Loss or damage was suffered by being bound by a contract for an apartment not as represented, thus statutory rescission under ss 237 and 243 was appropriate. Equitable rescission would also have been available.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claims succeeded; contract rescinded; damages and costs to be determined
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'contractual Representations' 'statutory Rescission' 'disclaimers and Exclusion Clauses' 'remedies for Misleading Conduct']
['consumer Law' 'equity' 'contract'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'contractual Representations' 'statutory Rescission' 'disclaimers and Exclusion Clauses' 'remedies for Misleading 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pre-contractual representations by render and agent were misleading or deceptive under s 18 ACL' "Whether the inscription 'artist impression' and contractual disclaimers/exclusion clauses negated or qualified the representation" 'Whether applicants relied on the alleged representations in entering the contract' 'Whether loss or damage was suffered sufficient to warrant statutory rescission under s 237 and 243 ACL' 'Whether further or alternative relief by rescission in equity was available']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, through its 'hero render' and confirming oral statements, made representations as to a substantial design feature of apartment 14.01 which were misleading and deceptive in contravention of s 18 of the ACL. The inscription 'artist impression', disclaimers, and exclusion clauses did not correct the clear impression or negate reasonable reliance. The applicants relied on the representation in entering the contract. Loss or damage was suffered by being bound by a contract for an apartment not as represented, thus statutory rescission under ss 237 and 243 was appropriate. Equitable rescission would also have been available.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims succeeded; contract rescinded; damages and costs to be determined

Orders

  • ['The contract of sale for the purchase by the Applicants of apartment 14.01 at 20-21 Queens Road, Melbourne, be rescinded.' 'By 4:00pm on 25 March 2022, the Respondent return to the Applicants the bank guarantee provided by the Bank of Melbourne in lieu of a deposit.' 'Respondent to pay damages and pre-judgment...