Alami v Langov & Ors [2008] NSWSC 812

Alami v Langov & Ors [2008] NSWSC 812

The first defendant did not contravene the Fair Trading Act 1987 because, considered in context, his description of the machine as excellent was puffery or was negated by later truthful communications to the second defendant, and no causal link to the plaintiff's loss was established. The third defendant, through the second defendant, contracted to provide a machine in excellent condition, fit for the plaintiff's business, serviceable under the 90 day warranty, and capable of lawful operation in Australia; those obligations were breached because the machine required calibration and servicing and remained unregistered for want of the EC certificate. The second and third defendants also...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment in Common Law Division Proceedings Concerning Sale of a Laser Machine, Breach of Contract and Misleading Conduct Claims / Hearing Proceeded in Absence of the Second and Third Defendants; Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim against the first defendant dismissed; judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for damages and costs of the claims against them.
Legal Topics
['sale of Laser Machine' 'scope of Contract' 'breach of Express and Implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'fitness for Purpose and Merchantable Quality' 'damages']
['contracts' 'trade Practices and Fair Trading' 'sale of Goods' 'therapeutic Goods Regulation'] ['sale of Laser Machine' 'scope of Contract' 'breach of Express and Implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'fitness for Purpose and Merchantable Quality' 'damages']

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

Principal Judgment in Common Law Division Proceedings Concerning Sale of a Laser Machine, Breach of Contract and Misleading Conduct Claims / Hearing Proceeded in Absence of the Second and Third Defendants; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or made false or misleading representations by describing the laser machine as in excellent condition.' "Whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the second defendant on behalf of the third defendant required provision of a laser machine in good working order, safe and suitable for use in the plaintiff's business, and capable of lawful operation in Australia." 'Whether the second defendant and third defendant breached express, implied and statutory terms of the sale agreement.' 'Whether the second defendant and third defendant engaged in misleading conduct in representing that the machine was in excellent working condition and warranted for 90 days.' "What damages should be awarded for the plaintiff's loss."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant did not contravene the Fair Trading Act 1987 because, considered in context, his description of the machine as excellent was puffery or was negated by later truthful communications to the second defendant, and no causal link to the plaintiff's loss was established. The third defendant, through the second defendant, contracted to provide a machine in excellent condition, fit for the plaintiff's business, serviceable under the 90 day warranty, and capable of lawful operation in Australia; those obligations were breached because the machine required calibration and servicing and remained unregistered for want of the EC certificate. The second and third defendants also...

Court Disposition

Claim against the first defendant dismissed; judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for damages and costs of the claims against them.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's claim against the first defendant be dismissed." 'The second and third defendants pay to the plaintiff damages in the sum of $60,462.' "The second and third defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of so much of the proceedings as concern her claims against them."]