MANN V. DUMERGUE

MANN V. DUMERGUE

The failure to admit evidence of the agent's conversation did not warrant a new trial because similar evidence was later admitted, the advertisement was admitted and uncontested, and the real issue was whether the respondent was shown genuine books reflecting accurate figures. Thus, setting aside the verdict was not justified.

Parties
Appellant: Mann; Respondent: Dumergue
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 1963
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Damages, Evidence Admissibility, Fraud, Breach of Warranty
Contract Law Misrepresentation Damages Evidence Admissibility Fraud Breach of Warranty

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mann

Appellant

Dumergue

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of evidence of agent's conversations warranted setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial
  2. 2 Admissibility of evidence relating to representations made about business earnings
  3. 3 Onus of proof regarding damages

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to admit evidence of the agent's conversation did not warrant a new trial because similar evidence was later admitted, the advertisement was admitted and uncontested, and the real issue was whether the respondent was shown genuine books reflecting accurate figures. Thus, setting aside the verdict was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court discharged
  • In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court be dismissed with costs