CIT CREDIT PTY LTD v Blayn Norman KEABLE [2006] NSWCA 130

CIT CREDIT PTY LTD v Blayn Norman KEABLE [2006] NSWCA 130

The Guarantee and Indemnity executed by the Respondent was not unjust under s7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) nor the result of unconscionable conduct by the Appellant under s51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The misrepresentations by Mr Zellner could not be attributed to the Appellant. The arrangements for legal advice did not impose a determinative duty on the Appellant. The Respondent bore responsibility for failing to read the Guarantee. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the Guarantee enforced, and judgment entered for the Appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'unjust Contracts' 'guarantees and Indemnities' 'independent Legal Advice in Guarantees' 'attribution of Conduct in Corporations']
['contract Law' 'trade Practices Law'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'unjust Contracts' 'guarantees and Indemnities' 'independent Legal Advice in Guarantees' 'attribution of Conduct in Corporations']

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

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Guarantee and Indemnity executed by the Respondent was void due to unconscionable conduct under s51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether the Guarantee was unjust under s7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).' 'Whether the misrepresentations by Mr Zellner were attributable to the Appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Guarantee and Indemnity executed by the Respondent was not unjust under s7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) nor the result of unconscionable conduct by the Appellant under s51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The misrepresentations by Mr Zellner could not be attributed to the Appellant. The arrangements for legal advice did not impose a determinative duty on the Appellant. The Respondent bore responsibility for failing to read the Guarantee. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the Guarantee enforced, and judgment entered for the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' "The Respondent's cross claim of 31 May 2004 is dismissed." 'Judgment for the Appellant in the sum of $424,498.41.' "The Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the trial and of the appeal." "The Respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act if otherwise entitled."]