Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor v. Lombok Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 310

Supetina Pty Ltd & Anor v. Lombok Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 310

The application to court did not constitute repudiation of the contracts, and Lombok was not justified in rescinding. Supetina was also not entitled to rescind, as it was in breach and not willing to perform according to contract terms. No party established entitlement to relief under the Trade Practices Act or common law. The contracts were deemed terminated by mutual abandonment, entitling the applicant to return of deposit and instalments paid.

Parties
First Applicant: Supetina Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: Avionne Joy Vincent; First Respondent: Lombok Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Kenneth Cyril Guy; Third Respondent: John Ronald Bryant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claim and first respondent's cross-claim dismissed. Court declared contracts ended by abandonment. Orders made for return of deposits and instalments subject to costs and taxation.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Repudiation, Rescission, Abandonment of Contract, Relief Against Forfeiture, Negligence, Agent Liability
Contract Trade Practices Misrepresentation Repudiation Rescission Abandonment of Contract Relief Against Forfeiture Negligence +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supetina Pty Ltd

First Applicant

Avionne Joy Vincent

Second Applicant

Lombok Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Kenneth Cyril Guy

Second Respondent

John Ronald Bryant

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commencement of application constituted repudiation of contract
  2. 2 Whether Lombok was justified in rescinding contracts based on alleged repudiation
  3. 3 Whether Supetina was entitled to rescind the contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The application to court did not constitute repudiation of the contracts, and Lombok was not justified in rescinding. Supetina was also not entitled to rescind, as it was in breach and not willing to perform according to contract terms. No party established entitlement to relief under the Trade Practices Act or common law. The contracts were deemed terminated by mutual abandonment, entitling the applicant to return of deposit and instalments paid.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim and first respondent's cross-claim dismissed. Court declared contracts ended by abandonment. Orders made for return of deposits and instalments subject to costs and taxation.

Orders

  • Applicants' claim dismissed
  • First respondent's cross-claim dismissed