Jones & Anor v Acfold Investments Pty ltd & Anor [1983] FCA 344

Jones & Anor v Acfold Investments Pty ltd & Anor [1983] FCA 344

Although the statement that the caravan park would be removed at some unspecified future time was misleading or deceptive, the applicants did not rely on it and were not induced by it to enter the agreements, so the necessary nexus for relief under ss. 82 or 87 was absent. No oral representation was made that the exterior would be exposed aggregate, and the contractual reference to exposed aggregate was not misleading in context because the GranoTrowl with GranoImpact finish was substantially in accordance with the Schedule of Finishes; in any event the applicants would have signed even if they knew of the actual finish. The associated rescission and breach claims therefore failed. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1983
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Rescission of Off the Plan Unit Purchase Agreements, Contractual Breach, Companies Act Illegality and a Vendor Cross Claim / Liability Heard Only; Damages and Quantum Issues Deferred; Matters Adjourned to a Date to Be Fixed
Outcome
The applicants failed on liability. The first respondent succeeded on its cross-claim in principle, with quantum of loss or damage to be determined later. The matters were adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'reliance and Causation Under S. 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'off the Plan Sale of Home Units' 'innocent Misrepresentation and Rescission' 'construction of Contract and Substantial Accordance With Schedule of Finishes' 'definition of Interest Under S. 76 of the Companies Act 1961 (queensland)' 'exclusive Use Car Space by Laws Under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980']
['trade Practices and Consumer Protection' 'contract Law' 'corporations Law' 'property Law' 'building Units and Strata Title'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'reliance and Causation Under S. 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'off the Plan Sale of Home Units' 'innocent Misrepresentation and Rescission' 'construction of Contract and Substantial Accordance With Schedule of Finishes' 'definition of Interest Under S. 76 of the Companies Act 1961 (queensland)' 'exclusive Use Car Space by Laws Under the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980']

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

Consolidated Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Rescission of Off the Plan Unit Purchase Agreements, Contractual Breach, Companies Act Illegality and a Vendor Cross Claim / Liability Heard Only; Damages and Quantum Issues Deferred; Matters Adjourned to a Date to Be Fixed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents represented that the exterior of the building would be exposed aggregate and whether any such representation was misleading or deceptive.' 'Whether the respondents represented that a nearby caravan park would be removed, or that Maroochy Shire Council had decided to remove it, and whether any such representation was misleading or deceptive.' 'Whether the applicants relied on any misleading or deceptive conduct or misrepresentation when entering the unit purchase agreements.' 'Whether the exterior finish of GranoTrowl with GranoImpact was substantially in accordance with a contractual Schedule of Finishes specifying exposed aggregate.' 'Whether the purchase agreements were illegal and void because they involved the issue of an "interest" within s. 76 of the Companies Act 1961 (Queensland).' 'Whether the first respondent was able and willing to complete, including by providing exclusive use car spaces, for the purposes of its cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the statement that the caravan park would be removed at some unspecified future time was misleading or deceptive, the applicants did not rely on it and were not induced by it to enter the agreements, so the necessary nexus for relief under ss. 82 or 87 was absent. No oral representation was made that the exterior would be exposed aggregate, and the contractual reference to exposed aggregate was not misleading in context because the GranoTrowl with GranoImpact finish was substantially in accordance with the Schedule of Finishes; in any event the applicants would have signed even if they knew of the actual finish. The associated rescission and breach claims therefore failed. The...

Court Disposition

The applicants failed on liability. The first respondent succeeded on its cross-claim in principle, with quantum of loss or damage to be determined later. The matters were adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['That matters QG102 and QG103 of 1982 be adjourned to a date to be fixed.']