Wait, Kenneth Marr & Anor v Reed, Noel Lloyd & Anor [1997] FCA 43

Wait, Kenneth Marr & Anor v Reed, Noel Lloyd & Anor [1997] FCA 43

The Trade Practices Act 1974 and negligent misstatement claims failed because the Court was satisfied that there was no misrepresentation as to the quality of the unit, no representation that the final common areas would strictly conform with plan C, and no reliance by the applicants on the pleaded representations. The reduction in resale price was almost wholly, if not wholly, explained by the downturn in the upper-end Gold Coast unit market. The contract claim succeeded only to the extent that some defects showed the unit had not been constructed in a thorough and workmanlike manner or in accordance with contractual specifications; damages of $11,730.00 plus interest of $9,149.40 were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages Pursuant to S 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Arising Out of the Purchase Off the Plan of a Home Unit, With Claims Also Advanced in Negligent Statement and Contract / Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Order After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants against the respondents for $20,900.00; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'damages Under S 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'negligent Misstatement' 'breach of Contractual Covenant to Construct in a Good and Workmanlike Manner' 'off the Plan Unit Purchase' 'building Defects']

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

Application for Damages Pursuant to S 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 Arising Out of the Purchase Off the Plan of a Home Unit, With Claims Also Advanced in Negligent Statement and Contract / Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Order After Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents, through their selling agent, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by representations about the common areas and the quality or prestige standard of the development' 'Whether the applicants relied on any pleaded representations when entering the contract to purchase Unit 4' 'Whether any loss suffered by the applicants was caused by the alleged representations rather than by the downturn in the Gold Coast unit market' 'Whether the negligent misstatement claim was made out' 'Whether the unit was constructed in breach of the contractual covenant requiring construction in a thorough and workmanlike manner and to the contractual standard of finishes' 'The proper amount of damages and interest for established contractual defects']

Ratio Decidendi

The Trade Practices Act 1974 and negligent misstatement claims failed because the Court was satisfied that there was no misrepresentation as to the quality of the unit, no representation that the final common areas would strictly conform with plan C, and no reliance by the applicants on the pleaded representations. The reduction in resale price was almost wholly, if not wholly, explained by the downturn in the upper-end Gold Coast unit market. The contract claim succeeded only to the extent that some defects showed the unit had not been constructed in a thorough and workmanlike manner or in accordance with contractual specifications; damages of $11,730.00 plus interest of $9,149.40 were...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants against the respondents for $20,900.00; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the applicants against the respondents for $20,900.00.' 'Costs reserved.']