McLeod, C. G. v Gibrose Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 188

McLeod, C. G. v Gibrose Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 188

The second respondent did not merely pass on the vendor's information but prepared descriptions which bolstered and exaggerated the provenance of the vehicle by representing it as the Queensland Governor's State Car or vice-regal, when those descriptions were false. Those representations were an inducing factor in the purchase, and the exclusion clauses and caveat emptor wording did not prevent liability under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The first respondent was also liable. Damages were assessed by allowing for the vehicle's increased value since purchase while also taking into account the decline in the value of money, resulting in an award of $4,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages for Infringement of Ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
The applicant succeeded and was awarded $4,000 and costs against the respondents.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'auction Sale' 'misrepresentation of Provenance of Motor Vehicle' 'exclusion Clauses' 'damages']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'auction Sale' 'misrepresentation of Provenance of Motor Vehicle' 'exclusion Clauses' '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 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Damages for Infringement of Ss.52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the auction descriptions of the Sunbeam vehicle were false and misleading.' 'Whether the second respondent merely passed on information supplied by the vendor or itself engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.' 'Whether exclusion clauses or caveat emptor wording prevented liability under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.' "Whether the misrepresentations induced the applicant's purchase." "How damages should be assessed where the vehicle's value increased after purchase."]

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent did not merely pass on the vendor's information but prepared descriptions which bolstered and exaggerated the provenance of the vehicle by representing it as the Queensland Governor's State Car or vice-regal, when those descriptions were false. Those representations were an inducing factor in the purchase, and the exclusion clauses and caveat emptor wording did not prevent liability under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The first respondent was also liable. Damages were assessed by allowing for the vehicle's increased value since purchase while also taking into account the decline in the value of money, resulting in an award of $4,000.

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded and was awarded $4,000 and costs against the respondents.

Orders

  • ['The respondents pay to the applicant the sum of $4,000.' 'The respondents pay to the applicant his costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.']