Johnson, P. v. Eastern Micro Electronics Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 609

Johnson, P. v. Eastern Micro Electronics Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 609

The first respondent, through its agents, breached its contractual obligation under Term 3 of the purchase agreement by failing to relocate the machine to a site approved by the applicant and by misleading the applicant about its true location after 28 August 1984; causation is established for the applicant's loss consisting of lost earnings from the machine and loss of the machine itself, thus entitling the applicant to damages measured as the difference between reasonably forecasted earnings and actual receipts during six months, and equivalent orders against second and third respondents under section 87(2)(d) for their involvement.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Johnson; First Respondent: Eastern Micro Electronics Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Joseph Lazar; Third Respondent: Les Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages Under Statutory and Common Law / Judgment After Hearing and Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against all respondents
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Advertising, Breach of Contractual Warranty, Measure of Damages, Relocation of Machine, Compensation Under Trade Practices Act
Trade Practices Contract Misleading and Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Advertising Breach of Contractual Warranty Measure of Damages Relocation of Machine Compensation Under Trade Practices Act

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Johnson

Applicant

Eastern Micro Electronics Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Joseph Lazar

Second Respondent

Les Smith

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Damages Under Statutory and Common Law / Judgment After Hearing and Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s.52(1) Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether representations as to earnings and relocation were contractual warranties or formed a collateral contract
  3. 3 Whether damages are recoverable for breach of contract or statutory contravention

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent, through its agents, breached its contractual obligation under Term 3 of the purchase agreement by failing to relocate the machine to a site approved by the applicant and by misleading the applicant about its true location after 28 August 1984; causation is established for the applicant's loss consisting of lost earnings from the machine and loss of the machine itself, thus entitling the applicant to damages measured as the difference between reasonably forecasted earnings and actual receipts during six months, and equivalent orders against second and third respondents under section 87(2)(d) for their involvement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against all respondents

Orders

  • Respondents to pay applicant damages of $5,552.00
  • Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the application, including all reserved costs but excluding costs of any amendment to the statement of claim, such costs to be taxed