Meetfresh Franchising Pty Ltd v Ivanman Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 234

Meetfresh Franchising Pty Ltd v Ivanman Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 234

The force majeure clause was an exception and the appellant failed to establish its applicability; reliance damages were appropriate because the appellant did not prove the refit expenditure would have been wasted in any event; the franchise and licence agreements were interdependent, so the appellant's cross-claim largely failed except for the conceded amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed only to the extent of the respondents’ concession; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['force Majeure Clauses' 'damages for Wasted Expenditure' 'reliance Damages' 'expectation Damages' 'interdependence of Contracts' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['contract Law'] ['force Majeure Clauses' 'damages for Wasted Expenditure' 'reliance Damages' 'expectation Damages' 'interdependence of Contracts' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the force majeure clause excused the appellant’s breaches of contract' 'Whether the appellant engaged in unconscionable conduct under s 21 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)' 'Whether damages for wasted expenditure (reliance damages) could be awarded' 'Whether the franchise and licence agreements were interdependent so as to preclude the appellant’s cross-claim']

Ratio Decidendi

The force majeure clause was an exception and the appellant failed to establish its applicability; reliance damages were appropriate because the appellant did not prove the refit expenditure would have been wasted in any event; the franchise and licence agreements were interdependent, so the appellant's cross-claim largely failed except for the conceded amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed only to the extent of the respondents’ concession; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Appeal allowed only to the extent of giving effect to the respondents' concession that $6,146.23 is payable by the respondents to the appellant." 'Enter judgment for the appellant against the respondents for that amount.' 'Otherwise dismiss the appeal.' "Order the appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the...