MILLER -v- KARAMAN PTY LTD & ANOR [2003] WASCA 249
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 249 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:141/2002 | 9 MAY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J PARKER J WHEELER J | 14/10/03 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID WILLIAM MILLER KARAMAN PTY LTD (ACN 008 996 263) ROBERT WILLIAM CROWLEY |
Catchwords: | Sale of goods Sale of equipment as part of amusement park business Substantial maintenance required Whether implied conditions of fitness for purpose and that goods of merchantable quality |
Legislation: | Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA), s 14 |
Case References: | Ashford Shire Council v Dependable Motors Pty Ltd (1959) 101 CLR 265; [1961] AC 336 Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441 Anthony v Esanda Ltd (1980) 32 ALR 627 Australian Knitting Mills v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387 De Vries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 George Wills & Company Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd (1956-57) 98 CLR 77 McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v Liaweena (NSW) Pty Ltd (1988) ASC 55-695 Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 54 ALJR 378 Voulis v Kozary (1975) 180 CLR 177 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : MILLER -v- KARAMAN PTY LTD & ANOR [2003] WASCA 249 CORAM : MURRAY J
- PARKER J
WHEELER J
- Appellant
AND
KARAMAN PTY LTD (ACN 008 996 263)
ROBERT WILLIAM CROWLEY
Respondents
Catchwords:
Sale of goods - Sale of equipment as part of amusement park business - Substantial maintenance required - Whether implied conditions of fitness for purpose and that goods of merchantable quality
Legislation:
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA), s 14
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M J McPhee
Respondents : Mr N W McKerracher QC and Mr K Yin
Solicitors:
Appellant : Michell Sillar McPhee
Respondents : Rouphael & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Ashford Shire Council v Dependable Motors Pty Ltd (1959) 101 CLR 265; [1961] AC 336
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
Case(s) also cited:
Anthony v Esanda Ltd (1980) 32 ALR 627
Australian Knitting Mills v Grant (1933) 50 CLR 387
De Vries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
George Wills & Company Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd (1956-57) 98 CLR 77
McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v Liaweena (NSW) Pty Ltd (1988) ASC 55-695
Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 54 ALJR 378
Voulis v Kozary (1975) 180 CLR 177
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
(Page 3)
1 MURRAY J: In October 1999, the respondents sold their amusement park business conducted on leased land in Mandurah under the business name "King Carnival"…
Continue reading Miller v Karaman Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Miller v Karaman Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 249
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 249
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Miller v Karaman Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Miller, and the defendant, Karaman Pty Ltd, regarding the sale of equipment as part of an amusement park business. Miller claimed that the equipment purchased from Karaman required substantial maintenance and was not fit for its intended purpose, thus alleging a breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The central legal issue was whether the equipment sold by Karaman Pty Ltd complied with the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality, as outlined in the Sale of Goods Act. Miller argued that the equipment was not fit for its intended purpose and did not meet the standard of merchantable quality due to the significant maintenance required. Karaman Pty Ltd countered that the sale was conducted in good faith and that any defects were not apparent at the time of sale.
The court examined the evidence presented regarding the condition of the equipment and the circumstances of the sale. It considered whether the defects were latent and not discoverable through reasonable inspection, and whether Karaman Pty Ltd had any knowledge of the defects. The court concluded that the defects were not latent and that Karaman Pty Ltd had failed to disclose the substantial maintenance needs, thereby breaching the implied conditions. The appeal by Karaman Pty Ltd was dismissed, affirming the earlier decision that the sale did not meet the statutory standards of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality.
The central legal issue was whether the equipment sold by Karaman Pty Ltd complied with the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality, as outlined in the Sale of Goods Act. Miller argued that the equipment was not fit for its intended purpose and did not meet the standard of merchantable quality due to the significant maintenance required. Karaman Pty Ltd countered that the sale was conducted in good faith and that any defects were not apparent at the time of sale.
The court examined the evidence presented regarding the condition of the equipment and the circumstances of the sale. It considered whether the defects were latent and not discoverable through reasonable inspection, and whether Karaman Pty Ltd had any knowledge of the defects. The court concluded that the defects were not latent and that Karaman Pty Ltd had failed to disclose the substantial maintenance needs, thereby breaching the implied conditions. The appeal by Karaman Pty Ltd was dismissed, affirming the earlier decision that the sale did not meet the statutory standards of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.