Legal Research
Cases
B.F. Machinery v Australian Plastics Extrusions

B.F. Machinery v Australian Plastics Extrusions

Case [2014] VMC 8

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

This content is currently unavailable.

Details

AGLC: B.F Machinery v Australian Plastics Extrusions [2014] VMC 8
Case: [2014] VMC 8
Decision Date: 11 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

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.

Actions

Citations

B.F Machinery v Australian Plastics Extrusions [2014] VMC 8

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Wilson v Anderson [2002] HCA 29
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…In Wilson v Anderson (2002) 213 CLR 401 at 418 [8], Gleeson CJ explained this objectivity principle in reference to commercial contracts:…
State of New South Wales v Banabelle Electrical Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 178
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…he context of the surrounding circumstances known to both parties (aka the "factual matrix"). In New South Wales v Banabelle Electrical Pty Ltd (2002) 54 NSWLR 503 Einstein J said:…
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…airly stringent set of rules to determine if something is a term that should be implied. In Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352, Mason CJ (with whom Stephen and Wilson JJ agreed upon the issue of ad hoc implied terms) stated (for Australia) his now famous “true rule”gov…
Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant [1933] HCA 35
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…The defendant argued that the machine was not of merchantable quality. In Australian Knitting Mills v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387 Dixon J (as he then was) carved out a classic and still relevant distinction between those instances in which the particular goods supplied are defective in the sense of not normal for goods…
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1935] UKPC 2
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…The defendant argued that the machine was not of merchantable quality. In Australian Knitting Mills v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387 Dixon J (as he then was) carved out a classic and still relevant distinction between those instances in which the particular goods supplied are defective in the sense of not normal for goods of the description sold…

AI Chat coming soon