SMYP Proprietary Limited v Sea & Sun (Development) Pty Limited trading as Australia Skyrd Estate Winery [2021] NSWDC 778

SMYP Proprietary Limited v Sea & Sun (Development) Pty Limited trading as Australia Skyrd Estate Winery [2021] NSWDC 778

The evidence did not establish consensus ad idem for a compromise releasing all stock in exchange for $200,000; the only agreement reached provided for release of two containers upon staged payment. The first defendant failed to discharge its obligations under the contract. There was no conduct by the first or second defendant amounting to misleading or deceptive representations as required under the ACL. The cross-claim fails for want of proof of the alleged compromise agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant; Judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiff; Judgment for the Cross-Defendant against the Cross-Claimant on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'novation' 'accounts Stated' 'compromise Agreements' 'consensus Ad Idem' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'director Liability' 'cross Examination']
['contract' 'consumer Law' 'evidence'] ['breach of Contract' 'novation' 'accounts Stated' 'compromise Agreements' 'consensus Ad Idem' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'director Liability' 'cross Examination']

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 a compromise or settlement agreement was reached regarding the release of wine stock upon payment of $200,000.' 'Whether the first defendant breached terms of contract with the plaintiff by failing to pay outstanding invoices and storage fees.' 'Whether a breach of an express contractual term constitutes misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).' "Whether the second defendant (director) is personally liable for the company's breach under the ACL."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish consensus ad idem for a compromise releasing all stock in exchange for $200,000; the only agreement reached provided for release of two containers upon staged payment. The first defendant failed to discharge its obligations under the contract. There was no conduct by the first or second defendant amounting to misleading or deceptive representations as required under the ACL. The cross-claim fails for want of proof of the alleged compromise agreement.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant; Judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiff; Judgment for the Cross-Defendant against the Cross-Claimant on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant for $239,621.33;' "First Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the Plaintiff claim against it on an indemnity basis;" 'Verdict and judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiff;' 'Verdict and judgment for the Cross-Defendant against...