Damanios v Stateroads Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 108

Damanios v Stateroads Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCATCD 108

The Tribunal was not satisfied that a reasonably diligent mechanic performing a pre-purchase inspection should have discovered the bent right front suspension strut or raised its possibility with the applicant. As such, no breach of Section 60 or Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law was proven on the balance of probabilities.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['due Care and Skill' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['consumer Law'] ['due Care and Skill' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Consumer Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent breached Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law by failing to exercise due care and skill in pre-purchase vehicle inspection' 'Whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that a reasonably diligent mechanic performing a pre-purchase inspection should have discovered the bent right front suspension strut or raised its possibility with the applicant. As such, no breach of Section 60 or Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law was proven on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']