Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: CUSTOM CREDIT CORPORATION LTD v CENEPRO PTY LTD [1991] NSWCA 68 Decision date: 07 August 1991
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Cenepro Pty Ltd [1991] NSWCA 68
- Case
- [1991] NSWCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the enforceability of a guarantee provided by Cenepro Pty Ltd (the respondent) in favour of Custom Credit Corporation Ltd.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent's guarantee was rendered void due to a misrepresentation made by the appellant regarding the financial position of the principal debtor. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent had been induced to enter into the guarantee by a false representation of fact, and if so, whether this vitiated the contract of guarantee.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had made a representation concerning the principal debtor's financial standing which was, in fact, false. This misrepresentation was material to the respondent's decision to provide the guarantee. Applying established principles of contract law, the court held that a contract induced by a material misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the party misled. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to rescind the guarantee.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the respondent was affirmed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent's guarantee was rendered void due to a misrepresentation made by the appellant regarding the financial position of the principal debtor. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent had been induced to enter into the guarantee by a false representation of fact, and if so, whether this vitiated the contract of guarantee.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had made a representation concerning the principal debtor's financial standing which was, in fact, false. This misrepresentation was material to the respondent's decision to provide the guarantee. Applying established principles of contract law, the court held that a contract induced by a material misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the party misled. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to rescind the guarantee.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the respondent was affirmed.
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.