Margaret Long v A & MI Pty Limited and Manal Ibrahim [2013] NSWDC 333

Margaret Long v A & MI Pty Limited and Manal Ibrahim [2013] NSWDC 333

The first defendant was liable because its salesman made representations about the car's value, condition, accident history, paintwork, need for repairs, inspection report, alarm and finance owing; those statements were actionable conduct, were relied on by the plaintiff, and were misleading or deceptive. The car's real value at acquisition was about $115,000 rather than the $129,990 paid, justifying damages of $15,000. The second defendant was not liable because there was insufficient evidence that she knew of or participated in the misleading representations. The implied term of fitness for frequent private use was not breached, but the implied term of merchantable quality was breached...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Purchase of a Used Motor Vehicle, Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Breaches of Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Legislation / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $15,000.00; judgment for the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'representations and Puffery' 'reliance and Causation' 'fitness for Purpose' 'merchantable Quality' 'person Involved in Contravention' 'damages']
['consumer Law' 'contract Law' 'sale of Goods' 'motor Vehicle Sales'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'representations and Puffery' 'reliance and Causation' 'fitness for Purpose' 'merchantable Quality' 'person Involved in Contravention' '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

Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Purchase of a Used Motor Vehicle, Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Breaches of Implied Terms Under Sale of Goods Legislation / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether statements made by the first defendant's salesman about the condition, value, history and features of the used Maserati constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)." 'Whether the plaintiff relied on the statements in entering the contract to purchase the vehicle.' 'Whether the statements were false, misleading or deceptive, including statements about value, condition, accident history, paintwork, repairs, inspection report, alarm and finance owing.' "Whether the second defendant was a person involved in the first defendant's contravention for the purposes of s 236 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)." "Whether the contract contained express terms derived from the representations or terms implied by the Motor Traders Association's Code of Ethics." 'Whether implied terms under s 19(1) and s 19(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) were breached.' 'What damages were recoverable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was liable because its salesman made representations about the car's value, condition, accident history, paintwork, need for repairs, inspection report, alarm and finance owing; those statements were actionable conduct, were relied on by the plaintiff, and were misleading or deceptive. The car's real value at acquisition was about $115,000 rather than the $129,990 paid, justifying damages of $15,000. The second defendant was not liable because there was insufficient evidence that she knew of or participated in the misleading representations. The implied term of fitness for frequent private use was not breached, but the implied term of merchantable quality was breached...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $15,000.00; judgment for the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $15,000.00.' 'Judgment for the second defendant.' 'The Court will hear the parties as to costs.']