Byers, P.C. & Ors v. Doretea Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 593

Byers, P.C. & Ors v. Doretea Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 593

Applicants were induced to contract by misleading representations in breach of s.52 Trade Practices Act; exclusion clause did not bar statutory relief; contract misdescribed property and builder was not lawfully entitled to construct; court ordered return of deposits and dismissed cross-claim based on discretionary relief under s.87 Trade Practices Act.

Parties
First Applicant: Pamela Carlotta Byers; First Applicant: Hugh Kirkpatrick Byers; Second Applicant: Cheryl Ann Byers; Third Applicant: Byers Holdings Pty. Ltd.; Respondent: Dorotea Pty. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices/contract Dispute / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Applicants succeeded; damages (repayment of deposits) awarded; cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Exclusion Clauses, Implied Terms, Rescission of Contract, Damages
Trade Practices Contract Law Vendor and Purchaser Equity Misrepresentation Exclusion Clauses Implied Terms Rescission of Contract +1 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 5 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pamela Carlotta Byers

First Applicant

Hugh Kirkpatrick Byers

First Applicant

Cheryl Ann Byers

Second Applicant

Byers Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Third Applicant

Dorotea Pty. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices/contract Dispute / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misrepresentations were made inducing contract under s.52 Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Effectiveness of contractual exclusion clauses in light of statutory remedies
  3. 3 Entitlement to rescind for misdescription at common law and in equity

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants were induced to contract by misleading representations in breach of s.52 Trade Practices Act; exclusion clause did not bar statutory relief; contract misdescribed property and builder was not lawfully entitled to construct; court ordered return of deposits and dismissed cross-claim based on discretionary relief under s.87 Trade Practices Act.

Court Disposition

Applicants succeeded; damages (repayment of deposits) awarded; cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay to the first applicants $17,800.
  • Respondent to pay to the second applicant $9,300.