Griffith University v Tang

In *Griffith University v Tang*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning the University's liability for alleged breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The dispute arose from representations made by Griffith University to Dr. Tang regarding her employment prospects and the terms of her academic position, which she claimed were not fulfilled.

The High Court was required to determine whether the University had breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Tang and whether its conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). Central to the determination was the interpretation of the employment contract and the nature of the representations made by the University.

Callinan J, in chambers, focused on the contractual interpretation and the application of the *Trade Practices Act*. The reasoning involved an analysis of whether the statements made by the University amounted to contractual promises or mere puffery, and whether they were misleading or deceptive in the context of the employment agreement. The principles applied concerned the formation of contracts, the interpretation of contractual terms, and the statutory prohibitions against misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.