Finstock Pty Ltd & Ors v Bickely Vale Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 627

Finstock Pty Ltd & Ors v Bickely Vale Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 627

Bickley Vale Pty Ltd, through its agents, made false representations that there were 8,000 chrysanthemum plants which would flower for Mother's Day 1984, that the average weekly income of the business was $1,500, and that flowers could lawfully be sold from the roadside caravans at Hardey Road and Hale Road, Forrestfield. Those representations induced the applicants to enter the agreement and lease, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), and Mr and Mrs Nesci were involved in that conduct within s.75B. The applicants effectively rescinded the agreement and lease, were entitled to damages and injunctive...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth), With Counterclaim / Final Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants against the respondents; declaration of lawful rescission; injunctive relief granted; judgment for the applicants on the first respondent's counterclaim; respondents ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'misrepresentation' 'rescission of Agreement and Lease' 'damages' 'injunctive Relief' 'counterclaim']
['trade Practices and Consumer Protection' 'contract Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'misrepresentation' 'rescission of Agreement and Lease' 'damages' 'injunctive Relief' 'counterclaim']

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

Claim for Damages, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth), With Counterclaim / Final Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bickley Vale Pty Ltd, through its agents, made the pleaded representations about the nursery business before the applicants entered the agreement and lease.' 'Whether any representations made were false or misleading or deceptive in trade or commerce contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicants were induced by the representations to enter into the agreement made on 20 December 1983 and the lease dated 10 February 1984.' 'Whether Mr and Mrs Nesci were involved in the contravention within the meaning of s.75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicants validly rescinded the agreement and lease and were entitled to damages and injunctive relief.' 'Whether Bickley Vale Pty Ltd established its counterclaim based on alleged wrongful repudiation by the applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Bickley Vale Pty Ltd, through its agents, made false representations that there were 8,000 chrysanthemum plants which would flower for Mother's Day 1984, that the average weekly income of the business was $1,500, and that flowers could lawfully be sold from the roadside caravans at Hardey Road and Hale Road, Forrestfield. Those representations induced the applicants to enter the agreement and lease, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), and Mr and Mrs Nesci were involved in that conduct within s.75B. The applicants effectively rescinded the agreement and lease, were entitled to damages and injunctive...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants against the respondents; declaration of lawful rescission; injunctive relief granted; judgment for the applicants on the first respondent's counterclaim; respondents ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the applicants lawfully rescinded the agreement made on 20 December 1983 and the lease dated 10 February 1984.' 'There be judgment for the applicants against the respondents and each of them in the sum of $18,095.' 'The first respondent, Bickley Vale Pty Ltd, be restrained from proceeding further with...