Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16

Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16

The proper measure of damages in deceit, where the entire purchase of a business was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, is the difference between the actual price paid (£2,200) and the real market value (£900), giving £1,300. The contractual apportionment of the purchase price is immaterial, as the misrepresentation induced the whole purchase, not merely the goodwill.

Parties
Appellant, Plaintiff: Denu Toteff; Respondent, Defendant: Michael Elias Antonas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1952
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decision of Supreme Court of South Australia reversed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Measure of Damages, Deceit, Business Sale
Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Measure of Damages Deceit Business Sale

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denu Toteff

Appellant, Plaintiff

Michael Elias Antonas

Respondent, Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper measure of damages in a case where the plaintiff is induced by fraudulent misrepresentation to purchase a business as a going concern?
  2. 2 Does the apportionment of the purchase price in the contract affect the measure of damages for deceit when the misrepresentation induced the entire purchase?

Ratio Decidendi

The proper measure of damages in deceit, where the entire purchase of a business was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, is the difference between the actual price paid (£2,200) and the real market value (£900), giving £1,300. The contractual apportionment of the purchase price is immaterial, as the misrepresentation induced the whole purchase, not merely the goodwill.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decision of Supreme Court of South Australia reversed.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia varied: Damages awarded increased from £200 to £1,300.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant.