Luo v Fitt

The case of Luo v Fitt involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Luo and his wife, and the defendant, Fitt, regarding the sale of a sofa advertised in a catalogue. The plaintiffs claimed that the photograph in the catalogue did not accurately represent the sofa they received, leading to dissatisfaction and a subsequent claim for damages. The matter was initially heard before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, where the plaintiffs appeared in person.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the catalogue photograph constituted a representation that gave rise to an implied term in the contract of sale. The plaintiffs argued that the photograph was more than just an invitation to treat and constituted a representation that warranted reliance, leading to a breach when the actual sofa did not match the photograph. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the photograph was merely an invitation to treat and did not form part of the contractual agreement.

The court considered the nature of the photograph in the catalogue and its role in the sale process. It examined whether the photograph could be considered a representation that induced the contract and whether there was a sufficient basis to imply a term regarding the accuracy of the depiction. The court ultimately found that the photograph did not amount to a contractual representation that could be breached. Consequently, the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Tribunal was upheld. The court clarified that the photograph was not a contractual term but rather an invitation to treat, and thus no breach occurred when the delivered sofa differed from the image.