Aliotta, J. v Broadmeadows Bus Service Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 212

Aliotta, J. v Broadmeadows Bus Service Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 212

Each respondent contravened s.52 and s.53A(1)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making or conveying misleading representations about lawful use of the property and failing to disclose the need for a permit; the applicant suffered loss by paying deposits in reliance on such representations. The contractual breach by the first respondent regarding term options in the lease entitled the applicant to rescind the contract and recover the deposit as damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for applicant against both respondents with damages and interest; judgment for second respondent against first respondent for indemnity; cross-claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representation' 'vicarious Liability' 'waiver' 'breach of Contract' 'lawful Use of Property' 'indemnity']
['trade Practices' 'contract Law' 'agency'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representation' 'vicarious Liability' 'waiver' 'breach of Contract' 'lawful Use of Property' 'indemnity']

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

Civil Proceeding / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations were made about the lawful use of the property' 'Whether the conduct of respondents was misleading or deceptive under Trade Practices Act 1974' 'Whether there was breach of contract by the vendor regarding special condition 3' 'Whether agent acted within scope of authority' 'Whether applicant suffered loss due to reliance on misrepresentations']

Ratio Decidendi

Each respondent contravened s.52 and s.53A(1)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making or conveying misleading representations about lawful use of the property and failing to disclose the need for a permit; the applicant suffered loss by paying deposits in reliance on such representations. The contractual breach by the first respondent regarding term options in the lease entitled the applicant to rescind the contract and recover the deposit as damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicant against both respondents with damages and interest; judgment for second respondent against first respondent for indemnity; cross-claims dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Damages awarded to applicant in the sum of $25,000.00 against both respondents.' 'Interest awarded in the sum of $4,529.11.' "Applicant's costs of the proceeding awarded." 'Cross-claim of first respondent against applicant dismissed.' 'Judgment for second respondent against first respondent for indemnity equal to...