Corani & Corani v Wright, Wright and Basheer & De Conno Pty Ltd

In the case of Corani & Corani v Wright, Wright and Basheer & De Conno Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Corani, brought an action against the defendants, Mr and Mrs Wright who were the vendors of the property, and Mr De Conno, the real estate agent who acted on behalf of the vendors. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by overstating the area of the land to be sold. The plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA). The defendants, in turn, raised various defences, including that the plaintiffs had relied on the disclaimer clause in the sales material, and that the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming damages because they had elected to settle on the contract and reserve their rights to claim damages. The court had to decide whether the disclaimer clause in the sales material negated the plaintiffs' reliance on the misstatement, and whether the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming damages. The court also had to determine the measure of loss or damage, whether it was confined by analogies with tort law, and whether the natural person vendors could be secondarily liable pursuant to ss 82(1) and 75B for the agent's contravention of s52.

The court held that the disclaimer clause in the sales material did not negate the plaintiffs' reliance on the misstatement, and that the plaintiffs were not estopped from claiming damages because they had elected to settle on the contract and reserve their rights to claim damages. The court also held that the measure of loss or damage was not confined by analogies with tort law, and that the natural person vendors could be secondarily liable pursuant to ss 82(1) and 75B for the agent's contravention of s52 if there was some degree of knowledgeable complicity. The court found that the vendors had been involved in the contravention because they had been in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention.

The court also discussed the rights of contribution and indemnity where there was a mix of statutory and general law causes of action. The court held that the defendants were entitled to seek equitable contribution one from the other, even if there was a joint judgment arising from a mix of statutory and common law causes of action. The court held that the common law or more particularly the law relating to principal and agent would accord the principal a right of indemnity for any judgment incurred by him as a result of the agent's default. The court held that the principles of equitable contribution were based on the equitable doctrine of equality, and that when a person paid more than their share of a common monetary obligation, the payment pro tanto discharged the obligation of all who owed the common obligation.

The court made no final orders on the contribution proceedings until it heard further argument from the defendants' counsel. The court held that if no contribution orders were made, the law relating to joint judgment debtors would prevail, and that the judgment of $29,204 would be borne as to 50% by the first and second defendants and as to 50% by the third defendant. The court held that if the plaintiffs recovered the entirety of the judgment from, say, the third defendant, as would be their right, the third defendant could obtain contribution of 50% of that sum from the first and second defendants.