Bentley v Garage 88 Sydney Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 3

Bentley v Garage 88 Sydney Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 3

Because the appellant accepted and used the nonconforming mirror unit, his remedy was damages rather than specific performance or restitution. The appropriate damages were the difference between the value of the goods supplied ($420.00) and the value of conforming goods at the time of supply ($820.00), being $400.00. There was no evidentiary basis to find that the respondent made a pricing mistake known to the appellant when the contract was formed, so the Tribunal erred in setting aside the bargain and ordering return of the goods and refund.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Breach of Contract for Supply of a Toyota GT 86 Mirror Unit / Appeal Panel Decision From the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the extent necessary; appeal allowed; orders made 27 June 2016 set aside; respondent ordered to pay appellant $400.00 immediately; each party to pay their own costs of the appeal and first instance proceedings.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'damages for Defective Goods' 'unilateral Mistake' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Contract' 'damages for Defective Goods' 'unilateral Mistake' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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 Concerning Breach of Contract for Supply of a Toyota GT 86 Mirror Unit / Appeal Panel Decision From the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal applied the correct measure of damages for breach of the contract to supply a conforming mirror unit.' 'Whether the Tribunal was correct to order return of the mirror unit and refund on the basis of unilateral mistake.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the extent necessary.' 'Whether costs or filing fees should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant accepted and used the nonconforming mirror unit, his remedy was damages rather than specific performance or restitution. The appropriate damages were the difference between the value of the goods supplied ($420.00) and the value of conforming goods at the time of supply ($820.00), being $400.00. There was no evidentiary basis to find that the respondent made a pricing mistake known to the appellant when the contract was formed, so the Tribunal erred in setting aside the bargain and ordering return of the goods and refund.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the extent necessary; appeal allowed; orders made 27 June 2016 set aside; respondent ordered to pay appellant $400.00 immediately; each party to pay their own costs of the appeal and first instance proceedings.

Orders

  • ['To the extent necessary, leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed and the orders made 27 June 2016 are set aside.' 'In lieu thereof the Appeal Panel makes the following order in application GEN 15/66915: The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $400.00 immediately.' 'Each part is to pay their...