Pure & Natural (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor v Graphio Pty Ltd & Ors Graphio Pty Ltd v Pure & Natural (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 94

Pure & Natural (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor v Graphio Pty Ltd & Ors Graphio Pty Ltd v Pure & Natural (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 94

Applicants, through their agents, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making representations about achievable sales figures and base figures for gross sales without reasonable grounds; these representations induced the respondents to enter into the franchise and business purchase agreements. There was no breach established regarding training obligations. The franchise agreement was not extended post-8 November 1992. Respondents admitted liability for certain unpaid service and advertising fees. Legal costs under clause 2(z) are subject to further determination.

Parties
Applicant: PURE & NATURAL (AUST) PTY LTD; Applicant: PURE & NATURAL DINERS PTY LTD; Respondent/cross Claimant: GRAPHIO PTY LTD; Respondent: LEON DEKELL; Respondent: JEANETTE DEKELL
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Trial / Decision on Liability and Certain Claims; Further Damages Hearing Adjourned
Outcome
Declarations of contraventions of s 52(1) given; orders for separate hearing on damages; judgment for admitted fees; some claims dismissed; further hearing on costs.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Franchise Agreements, Contractual Obligations, Damages
Commercial Law Trade Practices Law Franchise Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Franchise Agreements Contractual Obligations 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PURE & NATURAL (AUST) PTY LTD

Applicant

PURE & NATURAL DINERS PTY LTD

Applicant

GRAPHIO PTY LTD

Respondent/cross Claimant

LEON DEKELL

Respondent

JEANETTE DEKELL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial / Decision on Liability and Certain Claims; Further Damages Hearing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether representations regarding future sales were misleading
  3. 3 Whether contractual obligations concerning fees and training were breached

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants, through their agents, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making representations about achievable sales figures and base figures for gross sales without reasonable grounds; these representations induced the respondents to enter into the franchise and business purchase agreements. There was no breach established regarding training obligations. The franchise agreement was not extended post-8 November 1992. Respondents admitted liability for certain unpaid service and advertising fees. Legal costs under clause 2(z) are subject to further determination.

Court Disposition

Declarations of contraventions of s 52(1) given; orders for separate hearing on damages; judgment for admitted fees; some claims dismissed; further hearing on costs.

Orders

  • Questions except damages on cross-claim to be decided separately and before damages.
  • Declarations of misleading conduct on two representations as contravening s 52(1) Trade Practices Act 1974.