Mukherjee v Equipmed Pty Limited [2003] NSWCA 248

The trial judge erred by awarding damages based on gross profit rather than the proven cost of running and restocking the goods; as only this loss was supported by evidence, damages were limited to this sum and interest.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 26 August 2003
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: ['breach of Contract' 'assessment of Damages' 'restocking Fees' 'loss of Profit']

['contract'] ['breach of Contract' 'assessment of Damages' 'restocking Fees' 'loss of Profit']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the trial judge correctly assessed damages for loss of profit following breach of contract by refusal to accept goods' 'Whether the respondent was entitled to gross or net profit as damages' 'Applicability of restocking fee clause when goods were not delivered']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

['Set aside the judgment of Judge Balla' 'Judgment entered for the respondent in the sum of $108,464.09' "The appellant to pay respondent's costs of the proceedings before Judge Balla" 'No order as to the costs of the appeal']