Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva & Ors [2019] NSWDC 431
Hearing dates: 31 July 2019, 1 – 2 & 16 August 2019
Date of orders: 22 August 2019
Decision date: 22 August 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 282.

Catchwords:

CONTRACT – supply of wall printing machinery – breach of contract – existence of oral contract –whether damage was caused.

 

DAMAGES – breach of warranty – loss of profits – cost of rectification – reliance damages.

 

TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether pre-contractual representations were made – whether the misrepresentations were false, misleading or deceptive – whether statement about “quality” of product actionable representation or ‘puffery’ – ancillary liability – whether agent directly liable for any misrepresentation – whether agent can only be liable as accessory for misleading or deceptive conduct – reliance.

  ESTOPPEL– whether estoppel lies in respect to verbal guarantee that is unenforceable for non-compliance with requirement of writing.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995(NSW)
Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic)
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA)
Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp)
Cases Cited: ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640
ACCC v Valve Corporation (No.3) [2016] FCA 196
ACCC v Valve Corporation [2017] FCAFC 224
Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549
Beaton v Moore Acceptance Corp Pty Ltd (1959) 104 CLR 107
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304
Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45
Coal Cliff Collieries Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 1
Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226
Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385
Forrest v ASIC [2012] HCA 39
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145
Heimann v The Commonwealth (1938) SR (NSW) 691
Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459
Heydon v NRMA Ltd (2000) 51 NSWLR 1
Houghton v Arms (2006) 225 CLR 553
Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd (1999) 199 CLR 413
Magennis v Fallon (1828) LR 2 Ir 167
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494
Mondel v Steel (1881) 151 ER 1288
Petty v Penfold Wines Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 282
Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWDC 431
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Khabiya t/as Samso Wall Printing v Sachdeva involved a dispute regarding the supply of wall printing machinery. The plaintiff, Samso Wall Printing, alleged that the defendant, Sachdeva, breached an oral contract for the supply of machinery and made misleading or deceptive pre-contractual representations. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether an oral contract existed, whether the defendant breached the contract, whether the defendant made misleading or deceptive representations, and whether the plaintiff could claim reliance damages.

The court first considered whether an oral contract existed between the parties. It found that, despite the absence of a written agreement, there was evidence of an oral contract based on the conduct and communications between the parties. The court then addressed the issue of breach of contract, finding that the defendant failed to supply the machinery as agreed and therefore breached the contract. The court also examined whether the defendant made misleading or deceptive pre-contractual representations regarding the quality of the machinery. It found that some representations were misleading and deceptive, leading to a breach of trade practices.

The court examined the plaintiff's claims for damages, including loss of profits and the cost of rectification. It determined that the plaintiff was entitled to claim reliance damages, as they had relied on the defendant's representations when entering into the contract. The court also considered the applicability of estoppel to the unenforceable verbal guarantee. It found that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case. Finally, the court addressed the liability of the agent, ruling that the agent could be directly liable for misrepresentation and not merely as an accessory for misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff damages for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The exact amount of damages was determined at a later stage, as indicated in paragraph 282 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 282.

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.