Richard v Gendore Enterprises Pty Ltd

The appellant, Richard, brought proceedings against the respondent, Gendore Enterprises Pty Ltd, alleging negligence and misleading or deceptive conduct. Richard suffered injury when a replacement tyre for a harvester exploded. The injury occurred after Richard relied on incorrect tyre size information contained in the harvester's manual, which had been imported and sold by Gendore. The appeal concerned the trial judge's failure to address the claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW).

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Gendore owed Richard a duty of care to inspect the manual for errors, and whether Gendore engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by providing the incorrect tyre size information. The court was required to determine if Gendore's actions, or omissions, constituted a breach of duty or contravened the relevant consumer protection legislation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that Gendore, as an importer and seller of the harvester, did not owe a duty to inspect the manual for errors. The court reasoned that there was no evidence to suggest that Gendore knew or ought to have known of the inaccuracy in the tyre size information. Furthermore, the court found that Gendore had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The provision of the manual, which contained an error not known to Gendore, did not, in the circumstances, amount to conduct that was misleading or deceptive under the relevant legislation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.