Arturi, Frank v Zupps Motors Pty Ltd Auswide Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 194

Arturi, Frank v Zupps Motors Pty Ltd Auswide Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 194

A proceeding for damages for breach of implied conditions under s.71 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is not within the jurisdiction of this Court conferred by s.82 and s.86, since such breaches are not 'contraventions' for the purposes of those sections, but are ordinary contractual breaches. Likewise, no cause of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Frank Arturi; First Respondent: Zupps Motors Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Auswide Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1980
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages / Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Implied Conditions in Sale of Goods, Merchantable Quality, Federal Jurisdiction Under Trade Practices Act, Summary Dismissal
Consumer Law Contract Law Federal Jurisdiction Implied Conditions in Sale of Goods Merchantable Quality Federal Jurisdiction Under Trade Practices Act Summary Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Arturi

Applicant

Zupps Motors Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Auswide Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Damages / Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for damages for breach of implied conditions under s.71 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is within the jurisdiction conferred by s.82 and s.86 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether a breach of s.71 constitutes conduct contravening Part V for the purposes of s.82
  3. 3 Whether a claim against the manufacturer under s.74D constitutes a cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

A proceeding for damages for breach of implied conditions under s.71 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is not within the jurisdiction of this Court conferred by s.82 and s.86, since such breaches are not 'contraventions' for the purposes of those sections, but are ordinary contractual breaches. Likewise, no cause of action lies under s.74D as pleaded. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction and the claim must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's proceedings be dismissed generally.
  • The applicant pay the respective respondents their costs of the proceedings.