Bunter, Vaughn Charles v John Shearer Limited [1984] FCA 23

Bunter, Vaughn Charles v John Shearer Limited [1984] FCA 23

The applicant failed to establish any breach of merchantable quality or fitness for purpose in the sale of the airseeder; the problems encountered were due principally to the applicant's installation and operation of a hydraulic drive system without a priority valve and inappropriate directions for its use, not to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Vaughn Charles Bunter; Applicant: Jean Bunter; Respondent: John Shearer Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Express Warranties, Trade Practices Act 1974
Trade Practices Contract Consumer Law Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Express Warranties Trade Practices Act 1974

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vaughn Charles Bunter

Applicant

Jean Bunter

Applicant

John Shearer Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

  1. 1 Whether the sale and supply of an airseeder breached conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose under Trade Practices Act 1974 section 71
  2. 2 Whether the respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under sections 52 and 55 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of express written warranties

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any breach of merchantable quality or fitness for purpose in the sale of the airseeder; the problems encountered were due principally to the applicant's installation and operation of a hydraulic drive system without a priority valve and inappropriate directions for its use, not to any defect of the airseeder itself. There were no misleading or deceptive representations or breach of express warranties. Division 2A did not apply as the airseeder was not of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's claim be dismissed.
  • Money paid into court by the respondent be paid out to the respondent's solicitors.