Sammut v De Rome

[2011] QDC 294

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sammut v De Rome [2011] QDC 294

PARTIES:

Daniel Sammut  
(Plaintiff)

v

Joanne De Rome & Geoff De Rome   
(Defendants)

FILE NO:

408 of 2010

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT: 

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATES:

16 – 18 November 2011

JUDGE:

Judge C.F. Wall Q.C.

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $108,394.04 plus costs

CATCHWORDS:

Sale of goods by description – 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon motor vehicle – Contract for sale of goods – essential term of contract that vehicle was genuine 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon vehicle – goods did not correspond with the description – breach of essential term of contract – damages

LEGISLATION:

Sale of Goods Act 1896 s 16

CASES: 

Cassar v Pegoraro [2011] VCC 819

COUNSEL:

Mr Michael Wilson for the Plaintiff

The defendants represented themselves

SOLICITORS:

Harris and Co. for the Plaintiff
The defendants acted for themselves

HIS HONOUR:  The plaintiff's case against the defendants involves the sale by the defendants to the plaintiff of a 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon motor vehicle.

The defendants believed that the vehicle was, in fact, a 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon vehicle and the plaintiff wanted to purchase such a vehicle.

The plaintiff's case is that there was within section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, a sale by description, of the vehicle.  Alternatively, it is alleged that it was an essential term of the contract for the sale of the vehicle that the vehicle be a 1969 GT XW Ford Falcon vehicle.

The defendants deny that the second defendant, Mr De Rome, was with the first defendant, Mrs De Rome, an owner of the vehicle.

I am satisfied, in the circumstances, that the defendants were joint owners of the vehicle.  It was never suggested by the first defendant to the plaintiff that she alone was the owner of the vehicle. 

In my view, the first defendant, at all times, was acting on her own behalf and on behalf of the second defendant in relation to the sale of the vehicle and what she said in relation to the vehicle was said on behalf of herself and also the first defendant.

The vehicle was purchased in July 2006 from Jim Watt for $18,000.  The receipts issued by Mr Watt to the defendants are issued in the name of both defendants.  They are Exhibit 2.

The purchase money was handed to Mr Watt by the first defendant.   He said that he handed the deposit of $2,000 to Mr Watt and Mr Watt gave him a receipt.  The receipt was given to him in the name of the first defendant and the second defendant as purchasers. 

Within a week the first defendant, who handled the family finances, gave the second defendant $16,000 and he took that amount and gave it to Mr Watt.  Mr Watt gave him a receipt in the name of both the first and the second defendant.

The second…