D'Arling One Pty Ltd v Eagle Boys Dial-a-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 296

D'Arling One Pty Ltd v Eagle Boys Dial-a-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 296

There was no misleading or deceptive conduct or actionable misrepresentation by the plaintiff, as the statements about the lease in the Sales Pack were made in a draft document not directed at the defendant, and there was no evidence of defendant reliance at the relevant time. The second settlement agreement's reference to lease assignments did not constitute a misrepresentation. The defendant was not entitled to terminate, and the plaintiff is entitled to damages for breach of the second settlement agreement.

Parties
Plaintiff: D'Arling One Pty Ltd; Defendant: Eagle Boys Dial-a-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; cross-claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Misrepresentation, Rescission, Fraud, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Damages, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Equity Consumer Law Termination of Contract Misrepresentation Rescission Fraud +3 more

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D'Arling One Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Eagle Boys Dial-a-Pizza Australia Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or misrepresentation as to the existence and status of the Nelson Bay store lease
  2. 2 Whether any such conduct or representation amounted to fraud or provided a basis for the defendant to terminate the franchise or settlement agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant relied on the alleged misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

There was no misleading or deceptive conduct or actionable misrepresentation by the plaintiff, as the statements about the lease in the Sales Pack were made in a draft document not directed at the defendant, and there was no evidence of defendant reliance at the relevant time. The second settlement agreement's reference to lease assignments did not constitute a misrepresentation. The defendant was not entitled to terminate, and the plaintiff is entitled to damages for breach of the second settlement agreement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; cross-claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment and verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $98,472, plus interest from 18 May 2009 at the prejudgment Court rate as set out in Practice Note No. SC Gen 16.
  • The cross-claim be dismissed with costs.