Arturi, Frank v Zupps Motors Pty Ltd Auswide Pty Ltd

Case [1980] FCA 194


CATCHWORDS

F e d e r a l

C o u r t

o f

A u s t r a l i a

-

J u r i s d i c t l o n

-

Consumer

p r o t e c t i o n

-

C o n d u c t c o n t r a v e n l n g

P a r t

I V o r P a r t

V

oi

T r a d e P r a c t l c e s

Act

___

1 9 7 4

-

I m p l i e d

c o n d l t i o n s

I n

c o n t r a c t

o f

s u p p l y

o f

goods

-

Supp ly

o f

m o t o r v e h l c l e

t o consumer

-

v e h i c l e n o t

o f

m e r c h a n t a b l e

q u a l i t y

-

Damages

s o u g h t

f r o m

s u p p l i e r

a n d

m a n u f a c t u r e r

-

T r a d e

P r a c t i c e s

Act

1 9 7 4

( C t h . )

s s .

4 ,

7 1 ,

74A,

7 4 D ,

8 2 ,

8 6 .

PraLLlce

-

Summary

d i s m l s s a l

-

Rules o f

C o u r t 0 . 1 0

r . 4 ;

0 . 2 0

r . 2 .

F rank Arturi v.

Zupps h lo tors P t y L t d .

and

ALIshide

P t y

L l m l t e d

__- -

QLD No.

G11 o f 1 9 8 0

Coram : Brcnnan J .

19 December 1980

C a n b e r r a .

IN THE FEDERAL COljRT

OF

AUSTRALIA

)

\

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

- '

1

QLD No.

G11 o f 1 9 8 0

GENERAL DIVISION

I N THE

IL4TTER

o f

t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c c s

Act

1 9 7 4

BETWEEN

:

FRANK ARTURI

--

Applicant

AN

-

D

:

ZUPPS MOTORS

PTY

LTD

_-

Pirst

Rcspondcnt

AND

-

:

AUSWIIIE

PTY

LIhll'I'ED

Second Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGE FIAKIKG ORDER

Brennan J .

DATE

OF ORDLR

1 9 December 1 9 8 0

WIIERE FIADE

-

C a n b e r r a .

TIII: COURT ORDERS THAT :

-

1.

T h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s

p r o c c e d l n g s

b e

dlsrnlssed

generally.

2 .

The

a p p l i c a n t

p a y

t h e

r e s p e c t l v c

r c s p o n d e n t s

t h c l r

C o s t s

o f

t h e p r o c e e d l n g s .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

>

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QLD No.

G 1 1 o f 1 9 8 0

1 -

GENERAL DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER o f

t h e T r a d e P r a c t i c c s

Act

1 9 7 4

BETWEEN : FRWX ARTURI

Appl i c a n t

A N D

__

: ZUPI'S MOTORS

PTY

LTD -

First

Respondent

AND

: AUSWIDE

PTY

LIMITED

-

Second

Rcspondent

Coram : Brennan J .

1 9 Dcccmber

1 9 8 0

REASONS FOR .JUDGMENT

T h e

a p p l i c a t i o n l n l t i a t i n g

these

p r o c e e d i n g s

c l a m s :

"1.

Damages

p u r s u a n t

t o

5 . 8 2

o€

t h e

T r a d e

P r a c t i c c s

Act

1 9 7 4

f o r b r e a c h o f

I m p l i e d c o n d i t l o n s

I n

a

c o n t r a c t

f o r

t h e s a l c o f

a

c e r t a l n n ~ o t ~ r v c h l c l c

r c f e r r e d t o

I n t h e S t a t e m e n t

o f

Clalm.

2 .

c o s t s .

, I

T h e a p p l l c a t i o n

was

accompdnied

by

a

S t a t e ~ n c n t o f C l a ~ n ~ , a n d I n

t h c

u l t l m a t c p a r a g r a p h

o f

t h a t

p l e a d ~ n g

t h c r e

I S a

c l d l m f o r

"c1n1:lngcs

f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t " .

A t a

d l r e c t l o n s h c a r l n g ,

a n

~ n t l m n t ~ o n

1,;~s g ~ v c n

t h a t

I t

would

be

desirable

t o d c t c r m l n e

as

a

p r e l i m i n a r y

q u r s t l o n

thc

~ u r i s d i c t i o n

o f

t h l s C o u r t

t o g l v e

t h e

r e l i e f

c l a i m e d ,

a n d

t h c

d l r c c t l o n s

h e a r i n g

was

a d l o u r n e d .

IUien

t h e a d ~ o u r n r d

d i r c c t l o n s

2 .

h c a r m g came

o n ,

c o u n s e l

f o r

t h e

r e s p e c t i v e

r c s p o n d e n t s

s u b m l t t e d

t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i d n o t h a v e ~ u r i s d i c t i o n t o g i v e t h e

r c l i c f

c l a i m e d ,

a n d

c o u n s e l

f o r

t h e

f i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

moved

t o s t a y

o r

d l s m l s s

t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

as

f r i v o l o u s o r v e x a t l o u s o r a n a b u s c

o f

t h e

p r o c e s s

o

f

t h e

C o u r t .

T h e

r e q u l s l t e

n o t i c e

h a d

n o t

b e e n

g i v e n

u n d e r

0 . 1 0

r .4,

b u t

u p o n

t h e

f i r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

u n d e r t a k i n g

t o

f11c

a n a p p r o p r i a t e n o t i c e

o f

m o t i o n

n u n c

p r o

t u n c ,

I

d i s p e n s e d w i t h

s e r v i c e

o

f

t h e

n o t i c e .

A

t i m e t a b l e

was

s e t

f o r

t h e

r e c e i p t

o f

w r l t t c n

s u b m i s s i o n s

i n

s u p p o r t

o f

t h e o r a l

s u b m i s s i o n s a s

t o

j u r i s d i c t i o n w h i c h h a d b e e n

made

o n b e h a l f

o f

c a c h o f t h e p a r t i e s .

W r i t t e n

s u h m i s s l o n s

h a v e

now

b e e n

r e c e i v e d

f r o m

t h e

s o l l c l t o r s

f o r

t h o s e p a r t l e s

who

w i s h e d

t o a d d

t o w h a t

was

s a l d o n t h e l r b e h a l f .

The

r e l e v a n t

j u r l s d l c t i o n

of

t h l s C o u r t

i s

c o n f c r r c d h y

s . 8 6

o f

t h c

T r a d e

P r a c t i c e s

A

c

t

1 9 7 4

( t h e

A c t ) .

I t

p r o v l d e s :

I ,

J u r l s d l c t i o n

1 s

c o n f e r r c d o n

t h e C o u r t

t o h e a r

a n d

d e t e r m i n e

a c t i o n s ,

p r o s e c u t i o n s

a n d o t h c r

p r o c e e d l n g s

u n d e r

this

P a r t

a n d

t h a t

j u r l s d l c t i o n

i s

e x c l u s l v e

o f

t h e j u r ~ s d ~ c t l o n

o f

a n y o t h e r

c o u r t ,

o t h e r

t h a n

t h e

~ u r i s d i c t l o n o f t h e l l i g h C o u r t u n d c r s c c t l o n

7 5

o f

t h e

C o n s t l t u t l o n .

"

" F r o c c e d l n g s

u n d e r

t h l s

P a r t "

l n c l u d e

a

p r o c e c d l n g

under

S . 8 2 ( 1 ) :

I ,

A

p e r s o n who

s u f f c r s

l o s s

o r

damage

by

c o n d u c t

o f

a n o t h e r p e r s o n t h a t

was

d o n c

i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n

o f

a

p r o v l s l o n o f

P a r t

I V o r V

may

r c c o v c r

t h c a m o u n t

o f

t h c

l o s s o r

damage

by

a c t l o n

against

t h a t o t h e r p e r s o n

o r a g a ~ n s t a n y p e r s o n i n v o l v c d i n

t h e c o n t r a v c n t l o n . "

T h e q u e s t 1 0 1 1

t h u s

a r l s c s w h e t h e r

t h e

applicant

i n t h c s e

~ ~ - O C C > C L ? I J I ~ S

1s

s c e h l n g

t o

r c c o v e r

d

n

a m o u n t

oi'

l o s s o r

damage

causcd

by

" c o n d u c t

t h a t

was

d o n e I n c o n t r a v c n t l o n

of

a

p r o v l s ~ o n

o f . . . P d r t

L"'.

The

Statement

o f C l a i m a l l e g c s

t h a t

t h c

r r p p l l c a n t

e n t c r c d

i n t o a n a g r e c m c n t w l t h A u s t r n l l a n G u a r a n t e c C o r p o r a t l o n 1 . i n l t r d € o r

t h e

l c a s e

o f

a

F l a t m o t o r v c h ~ c l e w h i c h h a d h c c n

i n p o r t c d

i n t o

3 . .

A u s t r a l i a b y

t h e

s e c o n d

r e s p o n d e n t ,

a

" c o r p o r a t l o n "

a s d e f i n e d b y

s . 4

o f

t h e

Act;

t h a t

t h e a p p l l c a n t n e g o t l a t c d

hvlth

t h e

f l r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

( a l s o

a

"corporation")

f o r t h e

a c q u i s l t i o n

o f

new

F l a t

m o t o r v e h i c l e ,

a n d

t h a t

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

a n d

f l r s t

r e s p o n d e n t

a g r c e d

t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a n t " s h o u l d a c q u i r e

t h e s a i d v e h i c l e b y

way

o f

l e a s e "

f r o m A u s t r a l i a n G u a r a n t e e C o r p o r a t i o n L l m l t e d ;

a n d

t h a t

t h e

first

r e s p o n d e n t

d e l i v e r e d

t h e

m o t o r

v e h l c l e

t o

t h e

a p p l i c a n t .

A l t h o u g h

t h e S t a t e m e n t

o f

Claim

d o e s n o t

i n

terms

a l l e g e

a

c o n t r a c t b e t w c e n

t h e a p p l l c a n t a n d

t h e

f i r s t

r e sponden t

(wh lch

I

s h a l l c a l l

" t h e

d e a l e r " ,

t h o u g h

t h e

S t a t e m e n t

o f

Claim

d o e s

n o t

s o

d e s c r l b e

i t ) ,

I

a s s u m e

t h a t

t h e p l e a d e r ' s

i n t e n t l o n w a s

t o a l l e g e

t h a t

t h e a p p l l c a n t

a n d

t h e d e a l e r w e r e p a r t i e s

t o

a

c o n t r a c t

f o r

t h e s u p p l y

of

t h e F l a t

m o t o r

v e h i c l e .

T h a t

a s s u m p t i o n

i s

b a s e d

u p o n

a l l c g a t l o n s

t h a t

t h e r e

was

an

"agreement"

between

them

l ihlch

was

" s u b ~ e c t

t o a n ~ m p l l e d

c o n d l t l o n

t h a t

t h e

s a i d m o t o r v e h l c l e

was

r e a s o n a b l y f l t

f o r

t h c

pu rpose" ,

i . e . ,

f o r

u s e

as a

p r i v a t e

m o t o r

v e h l c l e ,

"hy

r e a s o n

o i

t h c p r o v i s i o n s o f

s.71

o f

t h e T r a d e F r a c t l c e s A c t

1 9 7 4 " ,

and

whlch

h a s " s u b ~ e c t

t o

a

f u r t h e r

l n l p l i e d

c o n d i t l o n

t h a t

t h e

s a i d

motor

b c h l c l e

]\as o f

m e r c h a n t a b l e q u a l l t y

by

v l r t u e

o f

t h c p r o v i s ~ o n s " o f

t h e

same

s e c t i o n ,

I n

i t s

r e l e v a n t p a r t s ,

s .71

p r o v l d e s :

I t

(1) Where a

c o r p o r a t i o n

s u p p l i e s .

.

. g o o d s

t o n

c o n s u m e r

i n

t h e

c o u r s e

of

a

b u s l n e s s ,

t h e r e

i s

a n

I m p l i e d c o n d ~ t i o n

t h a t

t h e

goods

supplied

u n d e r

t h e

c o n t r a c t

f o r

t h e s u p p l y

o f

t h e g o o d s

a r e

o f

m c r c h a n t a h l c

I t

q u a l l t y , ...

I'

( 2 )

It'herc

a

c o r p o r a t l o n

s u p p l l c s . .

. g o u d s

t o a

c011sumcr

i n

t h e

c o u r s e o f

a

b u s i n e s s

a n d

t h e

C O ~ S L I I I P ~ ,

c s p r c \ \ l y

o r

b

y

i r n p l l c a t l o n ,

m a k e s

known

t o

t h c c o r p u r ~ t l o n o r

to

t h c p e r s o n b y

whom

a n y a n t e c c d c n t n c g o t l a t i o n s a r c

c o n d u c t e d a n y p n r t ~ c u l a r p u r p o s e

f o r

\ \ h l c h

t he

g o o d s

']re

b e l n g acquired,

t h c r e

I S an

l rnp l lcd

condition

t h a t

thr

g o o d s

s u p p l i e d

u n t f c r

t h e

c o n t r a c t

T o r

t h c

s u p p l y

01

t h e

g o o d s

a r e

r e a s o n a b l y

i l t

f o r t h a t

p u r p o q e , . , .

1 1

S e c t i o n

7 1

a p p e a r s

t o

h a v e

b c c n

d r a a n

Crom

t h r

S u p p l y

o r Goo(15

. -.

__

( Jmpl ied

Tcrms)

Act

1 9 7 3

( U . K . ) ,

s . 3 ,

As

c o n d i t i o n 5

d r e

11npllcCl

b y

4 .

s.71

o n l y

w h e n

g o o d s

a r e

s u p p l i e d

u n d e r

a

c o n t r a c t

by

t h e o b l l g o r

c o r p o r a t l o n ,

I

a s s u m e

t h a t

t h e p l e a d e r

i n t e n d e d

t o

a l l c g e

a

c o n t r a c t

b e t w e e n

t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d

t h e d c a l e r a n d

t o c l a i m d a m a g e s

f o r

b r e a c h

o

f

c o n d i t i o n s

s t a t u t o r l l y

i m p l i e d

I n

i t .

T h e

S t a t e m c n t

o f

C l a i m a l l e g e s b r e a c h e s

o f

t h e

i m p l l e d c o n d l t l o n s

i n

t h a t

t h e motor

v e h i c l e

was

n o t

f l t

f o r u s e a s

a

p r i v a t e m o t o r v c h l c l c a n d

was

n o t

o f m e r c h a n t a b l e q u a l i t y .

J u r i s d i c t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r

s .82

when

the

damage

claimed

i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

i s

a l l c g e d

t o h a v e b e e n c a u s e d b y c o n d u c t d o n e

i n

c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f P a r t

IV

o r V

o f

t h e Act,

t h a t

i s t o

s a y , c o n d u c t

w h i c h d o e s n o t c o n f o r m t o n o r m s o f c o n d u c t p r e s c r l b e d b y

t h o s e

p r o v i s l o n s .

S e c t l o n

7 1

p r e s c r i b e s

n o

n o r m

o i c o n d u c t :

i t

a f f e c t s

t h e

l e g a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p a r t l e s

t o

a

c o n t r a c t b y

i m p o r t l n g

o n e

o r

more

c o n d l t l o n s

l n t o

t h e

c o n t r a c t .

I t d o e s

n o t

p r o s c r l b c

c o n d u c t

b

y

t h e

s u p p l l e r

o f

goods ;

i t

r c l a t c s

t o

t h c q r l a l l t y

o f

t h e

g o o d s

s u p p l i e d .

T h e m a r e

t w o

r c a s o n s

hhy

a

b r c a c h

o f

a

c o n d i t l o n

lshich

i s i m p l l e d

b y

5 . 7 1

d o e s n o t

I n v o l v e

c o n d u c t

i n

c o n t r a v e n t l o n

o f

a

p r o v l s i o n

of

P a r t V.

F i r s t ,

t h e

b r e a c h

d o e s

n o t

c o n s i s t

i n

t h e

c o n d u c t

o

f

s u p p l y i n g

g o o d s ,

b u t

I n

t h c

w a n t

o f

c o r r c s p o n d c n c e

b e t w e e n

t h e

s t a t e

o i t h e g o o d s

s u p p l l e d

a n d

t h e

quality

r e f c r r e d t o

I n

S . 7 1 .

S e c o n d l y ,

s.71

t a k e s

e i f e c t

by

I m p o s l n g

a n

o b l i g a t l o n

u p o n o n e o f

t h e c o n t r a c t l n g p a r t i c s a s

t h o u g h

t h e p a r t l e s h a d

e m b o d i e d

t h e

o b l i g a t l o n

I n

t h e l r

c o n t r a c t .

No

d o u b t

I t

1 s r i g h t

t o

s a y t h a t

t h e o b l i g a t i o n

i s

s t n t u t o r i l y c r e a t e d ,

f o r

t h e c o n c l l t l o n

c a n d e r i v e n o

f o r c e

f r o m a n a c t u a l o r

i m p l l e d

consent

o i t h e p a r t i c s

whose

frccdom

t o

e x c l u d e

I t s

i m p o s i t l o n

1 s rernovcd

by

s . 6 S .

But

by

d e s c r l b l n g

t h e o b l l g a t i o n

as

a n

j c l p l l e d

c o n d i t l o n ,

5 . 7 1

d c i l n e s

t h e

n a t u r e

o f

t h e o b l l g a t l o n .

I t I S a n

o b l l g a t i o n

v , h l c h

t a h e s

c r f c c l

by a

l e g a l

f i c t ~ o n , n a m e l y ,

t ha t

thc p n r t ~ e s

had In,lde

a

c o n t r d c t

w h l c h

i n c l u d e d

t h c

o b l l g n t i o n .

F o r

t h c

p u r p o s r s

o r s . 8 2 ,

t h e r e I o r c ,

a

b r c a c h

of

t h e o b l i g a t l o n

15

n o t

to b c

t r e , i t e d

a s

a

b r e a c h

01 an

o h l i g n t l o n

I m p o s e d

u p o n

t h e

o b l l g o r

by

t h e Act

d r h o r s

the

c o n t r a c t ,

h u t

a s

a n o b l l g a t l o n

i m p o s e d b y

t h e c o n t r a c t

l t \ e l f .

5.

I t i o l l o w s t h a t

a

p r o c e e d i n g

f o r d a m a g e s

f o r b r e a c h

o f

a

5.71

c o n d i t i o n 1s n o t a

p r o c e e d i n g

f a l l i n g w ~ t h i n

s . 8 2 .

I t

w o u l d b e s t a r t l i n g

I f

a

b r e a c h o f

a

5 . 7 1

c o n d i t i o n were

a

c o n t r a v e n t i o n

of

t h e s e c t i o n ,

f o r

on

t h a t h y p o t h e s i s

I t would,

by

v i r t u e

o f

5 . 7 9 ,

b e

p u n i s h a b l e

o n

c o n v i c t i o n .

So

a b s u r d

a

c o n s e q u e n c e

c o u l d

n o t

h a v e

b e e n

i n t e n d e d .

A

clalm

1 s a l s o made

a g a l n s t

t h e

s e c o n d

r e s p o n d e n t

( t h e

i m p o r t e r ) , w h i c h

i s

a l l e g e d t o b e

a

" n ~ a n u f a c t u r e r " o f

t h e

v e h l c l e

w l t h i n

t h e

m e a n i n g

o f

t h a t

t e r m

i n

s . 7 4 A .

T h e

a p p l i c a n t

1s

a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n

a

"consumer"

w l th ln

t he

mean lng

o f

t h a t

term i n t h e

Act,

a n d

p a r a g r a p h

14

o f

t h e S t a t c r n e n t

o f

Cla lm

1s

p l e a d e d

i n

t h e s e

terms:

1 1

I n

t h e

p r e m l s e s

t h e

s u p p l y

o f

g o o d s

b y

t h e

s e c o n d

r e s p o n d e n t

was

s u b ~ c c t t o an

u n p l i c d

c o n d i t i o n

t h a t

t h e s a l d m o t o r v c h l c l e w a s

o f

m e r c h a n t a b l e q u a l i t y

by

r c a s o n

o f

t h e p r o v i q j o r i s

o f

S e c t l o n

74D

o f

t h c T r n d c P r a c t l c e s

Act

1!)74.

( 1

T h e a l l e g a t i o n a n d t h e r e l l e f

which

1 s

c l a i m e d

t h c r c o n

a r e

m l s c o n c e i v c d .

S e c t i o n

74D

d o e s

n o t

l m p l y

a

c o n d J t i o n ,

a n d

J t

h a s

n

o

o p e r a t i o n

u n l e s s

t h e

m a n u f a c t u r e r

s u p p l i e s

thc

goods

t o

dnoth;;

p e r s o n

who

a c q u i r e s

t h e g o o d s

f o r

r e - s u p p l y

(s.741)(1)

( J ) ) .

I t

d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o

a

c o n t r a c t b c t w e e n

a

m a n u f a c t u r e r

a n d

a

c o n s u m e r ,

a n d

t h e

a p p l l c a n t

c a n

f o u n d

110

c l a i m

f o r

d a m a g c s

I o r

b r e a c h

o f

c o n t r a c t

u p o n

s . 7 3 D .

T

h

e

c l a l m

s o

f r n m c d

d l s c l o s c h

n o

r e a s o n a b l e

g r o u n d

o f

a c t l o n a n d ,

as

L m d l e y

L . J .

s a l d

111

D n ~ l s v e l l

v.

Jacobs

(1887)

L.R.34

Ch.D.278

a t

p . 2 8 4 ,

w l t h

r e s p e c t

t o

~ u c h

a

p l e a d i n g

"It

i s

d e m u r r a b l e

a t once, and I t I S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t h i n g

more,

i t I S

p e r f e c t l y

f r l v o l o u s . "

I t c a n n o t

b e

a l l o a e d

t o

s t a n d .

I t may

b e

t h a t

t h e p l e a d e r

l n t c n d l e d

t o L - ] a i m

c o m p e n s a t l o n

u n d e r

s . 7 4 D

a g a l n s t

thc

s e c o n d

r c % p o n J c n t

011

t h e

f o o t i n g

t h a t

t h e a p p l i c a n t

s u r f c r e d

d a m a g e

b

y

r c a s o n

t h : ~ t

t h e

I l a t

m o t o r

v e h l c l e ,

h a v i n g

b c c n

s u p p l l e d

b

y

t h e

~ m p o r L c r

t o

t h c

d e a l e r

a n d

h a v l n g

b e e n

s u p p l l e d

b

y

t h e

d c a l c r

t o

t h e

applicant

s o as

t o

6 .

fulfil

t h e

r e q u l r e m e n t s

o f

s . 7 4 D ( 1 ) ( a )

and

( b ) ,

has

n o t

o

f

m e r c h a n t a b l e

q u a l l t y .

I f

t h e

c l a l i n

h a d

b e e n

s o

f r amed ,

t he

damages

w o u l d

n o t

h a v e

b e e n

r e c o v e r a b l e

" p u r s u a n t

t o

S . 8 2 " .

A

p r o c e e d l n g

f o r compensation

b y

r c a s o n

of

goods

n o t b e l n g o f m c r c h a n t a h l c

q u a l l t y

i s n o t

a

c l a im

€o

r

damage

by

conduc

t

cun t r avcn lng

p r o v l s l o n

o f

P a r t V.

A

d e f e c t

i n

t h e

q u a l i t y

o f

goods

i s n o t

"conduct"

and

i t

1 s t h e r e f o r e n o t

c o n t r a v e n l n g

c o n d u c t

f a l l i n g

w i t h i n

s . 8 2 .

l h e

a p p l i c a n t

has

n o t

i n v o k e d

t h e

~ u r l s d ~ c t l o n

o f

t h l s C o u r t

I n a n y m a t t e r

I n

r e s p c c t o f w h i c h

j u r l s d l c t l o n

i s

c o n f e r r e d

u p o n

i t by

Par t

VI,

n o r

d o

h l s p l e a d i n g s

r e l y

on

any

o t h c r p r o v l s l o n o f t h e

Act

t o c o n f e r ~ u r i s d ~ c t i o n .

l h e

a p p l l c a t i o n

m u s t

t h c r e f o r e

b c

d l s m l s s e d .

An

argument based upon

S . 32

o f

t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t

o f

A u s t r a l i a

Act

1 9 7 6

( C t h . )

t h a t

t h c C o u r t m l g h t

e x e r c i s e

J u r l s d l c t l o n

i n

an

a s 5 o c l n t e d

m a t t c r

d o e s

n o t

d r l s e

€ o r

d e t e r m l n a t i o n .

l l l a t

s c c t l o n

has

e f f e c t

only when t h e

j u r i s d l c t l o n o f

t h e C o u r t

1 s

~n\-okeed I n

a

m a t t e r

I n

b . h l c h

j u r l s d l c t l o n

h a s

b e e n

v e s t e d

I n I t .

.4s

I

c o n q t r u c

t h e

a p p l i c a t l o n

dnd

t h e

s t a t e m e n t

of

c l a l m ,

t h e

applicant h a s

n o t

~ n v o h e d j u r l s d l c t l o n I n

s u c h

a

m a t t e r .

I t

i s

n o t n e c e s s a r y

I n o r d e r

t o d l s p o s e

o f

t h e s e

p r o c e e d l n g s

t o r c f c r

t o

t h e

j u r i s d l c t i o n

t o e n f o r c v c l a i m s ~ \ h l s h

a r c

p r o p e r l y

made

u n d e r

s.74D.

S e c t l o n

74(1)

r e f e r s

t o

t h L i t

j u r l s d i c t l o n .

T h e

s u b - s e c t l o n

c r e a t e s

a

l l a b l l l t y

i n

t h e

m a n u f a c t u r e r c o r p o r a t i o n

t o c o m p e n s a t c

t h e c ~ n ~ u m e r a n d p r o t 1 c l c s

t h a t

t h e

c o n s u m e r

"may

r c c o v e r

t h e

a l n o ~ l n t

o f

t he

compensation

by

d c t l o n a g a ~ n s t t h e c o r p o r a t l o n

111 a

c o u r t o f

c o m p e t e n t

j u r l s d i c t l o n . '

As

t h a t p r o v l s j o n ~ t s e l f does

n o t

c r e a t e 3 n v b t d n d d r d

o r

c u r i a l

c o m p e t e n c y ,

t h c

s t a n d a r d

m

u

s

b c

t

round

c l s c v h e r e

1x1

r ede ra1

lL1!*,

and

I t may

b e I o u n d i n s . 3 9 ( ? )

o f

t h c ~

-

J u d l c 1 a r v

2

Act

1 9 0 3

( C t h . )

(sce

Commonwralth

v .

l l n l t o n

( 1 9 2 3 )

3.5

C.L.R.352

a t p . 4 5 5 ) ,

01' In

..

o t h e r p r o v l s l o n s

a p t

t o c o n f e r ~ u r l s d ~ c t ~ o n

u p o n

t h e

c o u r t . ;

oC

t h c

S t a t e s

o r T e r r l t o r l c s .

I

do

n o t

p c r c c l v c

a

~ u r l s d i c t i o n

111 t h ~ s

C o u r t

t o g r a n t

r e l l c f

I n

a

c l a l m d r l s l n g

s o l e l y u n d e r

s . 7 4 n .

. I

.

..

7

1

I t w a s

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t

1

s h o u l d d e p a r t

from

t h e u s u a l

o r d e r a s

t o c o s t s b e c a u s e

i t

h a d b e e n - h e l d b y B o u l t e r

D . C . J .

i n

F l e t c h c r

v .

S e d d o n

A t k i n s o n

( A u s t r a l i a )

P t y . L t d .

(1979)

1 N.S.W.L.R.

1 6 9

t h a t

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a k a r d d a m a g e s f o r b r e a c h o f

a

c o n d i t i o n

i m p l i e d b y

s.71

was

t o b e v e s t e d e x c l u s l v e l y

i n

t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t ,

a n d

t h a t h l s H o n o u r ’ s

view

was

t h e o n l y

J u d i c i a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t u n t i l

Roger s

J .

i n

Z a l a i

v .

C o l

C r a w f o r d

( R e t a i l )

P t y . L t d .

( 1 9 6 0 )

ATPR

4 2 , 4 4 8

d e c i d e d

t h a t

s . 6 6

c o n f e r s n o

j u r l s d l c t i o n o n

t h i s C o u r t

t o

e n t e r t a i n p r o c e e d i n g s

o f

t h a t k i n d ,

a

d e c i s i o n w i t h w h i c h

I

r e s p e c t f u l l y

a g r e e

f o r

t h e

r e a s o n s

a b o v e

s t a t e d .

The

f a c t

t h a t

R o u l t e r

D . C . J .

h a d

e x p r e s s e d

a

c o n t r a r y

v i e w

i s no g r o u n d

f o r

r e f u s l n g

a

5 u c c e s s f u l

p a r t y

a

n

l n d e m n l t y

f o r

i t s

c o s t s .

I

w o u l d d i s m i s s

t h e p r o c e r d l n g s

hTith

c o s t s .

Details
AGLC
Arturi, Frank v Zupps Motors Pty Ltd Auswide Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 194
Case
[1980] FCA 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Frank Arturi initiated proceedings against Zupps Motors Pty Ltd and Auswide Pty Ltd. Arturi sought damages for breach of implied conditions in a contract for the supply of a motor vehicle, alleging that the vehicle was not of merchantable quality. The Court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and whether the claims against the suppliers were properly framed under the Trade Practices Act 1974. The Court held that a breach of an implied condition under section 71 of the Act does not constitute conduct contravening a provision of Part IV or V of the Act, and thus the Court did not have jurisdiction under section 82 for a claim of damages for breach of such conditions. Additionally, the claim against the second respondent, the importer, was also misconceived as section 74D of the Act does not imply a condition and has no operation unless the manufacturer supplies the goods to another person who acquires the goods for re-supply. The Court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.