Roymancorp (Australasia) Pty Ltd & Anor v Lau, S.W. [1987] FCA 574

Roymancorp (Australasia) Pty Ltd & Anor v Lau, S.W. [1987] FCA 574

The appellants’ misrepresentation concerning the lease constituted misleading conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, inducing the respondent to enter into the contract and pay money. The loss suffered by the respondent, including payments made, flowed from this contravention and is recoverable under s.82. The breach found was of an essential term entitling the respondent to rescind.

Parties
First Appellant: Roymancorp (Australasia) Pty Limited; Second Appellant: Kevin Ip; Respondent: Sau Wai Lau
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Misleading Conduct, Damages, Sale of Business, Termination of Contract
Trade Practices Misleading Conduct Damages Sale of Business Termination of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roymancorp (Australasia) Pty Limited

First Appellant

Kevin Ip

Second Appellant

Sau Wai Lau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements by the appellants constituted misleading conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser was entitled to terminate the agreement for breach
  3. 3 Scope and measure of damages under s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants’ misrepresentation concerning the lease constituted misleading conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, inducing the respondent to enter into the contract and pay money. The loss suffered by the respondent, including payments made, flowed from this contravention and is recoverable under s.82. The breach found was of an essential term entitling the respondent to rescind.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs