Sanrod Pty Ltd & Ors v Dainford Ltd [1984] FCA 170

Sanrod Pty Ltd & Ors v Dainford Ltd [1984] FCA 170

The respondent, through its agent, engaged in misleading conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by conveying a false impression regarding the presence and effect of the porte cochere, inducing the applicants to contract. The applicants were entitled to have the contract and guarantee declared void and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Applicant: SANROD PTY LTD; Second Applicants: HENRY JOHN JAGO and BEATRIC ELEANOR JAGO; Respondent: DAINFORD LIMITED
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Applicants succeeded; respondent's cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Sale of Land Off the Plan, Damages for Loss of Use of Money, Contract Rescission
Trade Practices Contract Law Property Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Sale of Land Off the Plan Damages for Loss of Use of Money Contract Rescission

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SANROD PTY LTD

First Applicant

HENRY JOHN JAGO and BEATRIC ELEANOR JAGO

Second Applicants

DAINFORD LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Whether applicants were entitled to rescind the contract and guarantee because of pre-contractual misrepresentations.
  3. 3 Entitlement to damages, including interest, for amounts paid in consequence of misleading conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, through its agent, engaged in misleading conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by conveying a false impression regarding the presence and effect of the porte cochere, inducing the applicants to contract. The applicants were entitled to have the contract and guarantee declared void and to recover damages including interest for the loss of use of money paid in consequence of the misleading conduct.

Court Disposition

Applicants succeeded; respondent's cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The contract dated 24 August 1981 between first applicant and respondent and the guarantee dated 24 August 1981 signed by the second applicants are declared void.
  • Respondent to pay the first applicant $50,000.00 by way of damages.