Juno Beauty Pty Ltd v Superior Skin Care Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLC 23

Juno Beauty Pty Ltd v Superior Skin Care Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLC 23

The contract did not include an agreed fixed term for notice. There was an implied term of reasonable notice, found to be one month. Commissions and profit-share agreements applied only to machines sourced by Superior, not to those sourced directly by Juno. Juno was the effective cause of the sale to Escape and entitled to profit-sharing. Superior's cross-claim fails as it did not prove entitlement to profits from B.I. sales.

Parties
Plaintiff: Juno Beauty Pty Ltd; Defendant: Superior Skin Care Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff for $16,018.07 and judgment accordingly. Verdict for the cross-defendant and judgment accordingly. Interest to be calculated by Registrar from 9 March 2005. Parties have liberty to apply on costs.
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Termination of Contract, Notice Period, Commission Entitlement, Profit Sharing Agreement, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Contract Formation Termination of Contract Notice Period Commission Entitlement Profit Sharing Agreement Breach of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juno Beauty Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Superior Skin Care Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial period was a term of the contract
  2. 2 Whether the contract provided for a set period of notice or required reasonable notice
  3. 3 Whether commission was payable after termination of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The contract did not include an agreed fixed term for notice. There was an implied term of reasonable notice, found to be one month. Commissions and profit-share agreements applied only to machines sourced by Superior, not to those sourced directly by Juno. Juno was the effective cause of the sale to Escape and entitled to profit-sharing. Superior's cross-claim fails as it did not prove entitlement to profits from B.I. sales.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff for $16,018.07 and judgment accordingly. Verdict for the cross-defendant and judgment accordingly. Interest to be calculated by Registrar from 9 March 2005. Parties have liberty to apply on costs.

Orders

  • Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $16,018.07 and judgment accordingly.
  • Verdict for the cross-defendant and judgment accordingly.