Greco, Charles & Anor v Bendigo Machinery Pty Ltd & Anor [1984] FCA 147

Greco, Charles & Anor v Bendigo Machinery Pty Ltd & Anor [1984] FCA 147

Because the respondents made representations as to the machine being in good or very good condition, which were not accurate, and such representation constituted misleading conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, the applicants are entitled to damages.

Parties
Applicant: Charles Greco; Applicant: Peter Guseli; Respondent: Bendigo Machinery Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Ernest Alfred Jennings
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants against both respondents with costs to be taxed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Misleading Conduct, Trade Practices, Damages
Consumer Law Misrepresentation Misleading Conduct Trade Practices Damages

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Greco

Applicant

Peter Guseli

Applicant

Bendigo Machinery Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Ernest Alfred Jennings

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the front end loader was in good condition as represented at the time of sale
  2. 2 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading conduct within the meaning of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to damages under section 82 of the Trade Practices Act

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents made representations as to the machine being in good or very good condition, which were not accurate, and such representation constituted misleading conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, the applicants are entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants against both respondents with costs to be taxed.

Orders

  • Judgment for $9,025.30 against both respondents
  • Costs to be taxed