Johnson, L.W. & Anor v Peter Evans Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 540

Johnson, L.W. & Anor v Peter Evans Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 540

The applicants were misled by the respondents' conduct: the vendor informed the agent that the property was one acre and the agent advertised it as such without adequate verification or correction. The material misrepresentation about the land area entitled the applicants to judgment for damages equal to their...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Laurence Wilfred Johnson; Applicant: Ninette Croy Johnson; Respondent: Peter Evans Pty Ltd; Respondent: Paul Vincent Dewsnap
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants against both respondents with costs.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Advertising, Rescission of Contract, Apportionment of Damages
Trade Practices Real Property Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Advertising Rescission of Contract Apportionment of Damages

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Laurence Wilfred Johnson

Applicant

Ninette Croy Johnson

Applicant

Peter Evans Pty Ltd

Respondent

Paul Vincent Dewsnap

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in advertising the land as 'one acre' when it was less.
  2. 2 Whether the contract was validly rescinded by the applicants as a result of the misrepresentation.
  3. 3 How responsibility for damages and costs should be apportioned between the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were misled by the respondents' conduct: the vendor informed the agent that the property was one acre and the agent advertised it as such without adequate verification or correction. The material misrepresentation about the land area entitled the applicants to judgment for damages equal to their deposit. Liability and costs were apportioned three-quarters to the vendor and one quarter to the agent, reflecting their respective degrees of knowledge and professional responsibility.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants against both respondents with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicants against both respondents in the sum of $9,250 with costs.
  • The second respondent's cross-claim against the applicants is dismissed.