Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva & Ors [2019] NSWDC 431

Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva & Ors [2019] NSWDC 431

Opticure breached its contractual warranty of merchantable quality by delivering two wall printing machines that were defective and not of merchantable quality; plaintiff entitled to damages reflecting replacement value of the goods (AU$92,000). No enforceable second contract, guarantee, or estoppel claim against first defendant established. No misleading or deceptive conduct actionable because 'highest quality' representation was sales puffery, not actionable representation, and causation for loss not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against second defendant for breach of contract; all other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'damages' 'breach of Warranty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'estoppel' 'supply of Goods' 'merchantable Quality']
['contract' 'consumer Law' 'tort' 'estoppel'] ['breach of Contract' 'damages' 'breach of Warranty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'estoppel' 'supply of Goods' 'merchantable Quality']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was one or two contracts between Mr Khabiya and Opticure' 'The terms of the contract(s)' 'Whether there was breach of contract(s)' 'Assessment of damages' 'Material pre-contractual representations and their makers' 'Whether the representations were false or misleading or deceptive' 'Whether any damage was caused by misrepresentations' 'Existence and enforceability of guarantee/estoppel against first defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

Opticure breached its contractual warranty of merchantable quality by delivering two wall printing machines that were defective and not of merchantable quality; plaintiff entitled to damages reflecting replacement value of the goods (AU$92,000). No enforceable second contract, guarantee, or estoppel claim against first defendant established. No misleading or deceptive conduct actionable because 'highest quality' representation was sales puffery, not actionable representation, and causation for loss not established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against second defendant for breach of contract; all other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Second Defendant to pay plaintiff $92,000 damages for breach of contract plus pre-judgment interest.' "Plaintiff's claims for misleading or deceptive conduct, guarantee, and estoppel dismissed." 'Plaintiff to submit proposed orders concerning interest and costs within 15 days; timetable for service and...