Seirlis v Bengtson &Ors

Case

[2013] QSC 240

11 September 2013


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Seirlis v Bengtson &Ors [2013] QSC 240 [2013] QSC 240 11 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seirlis v Bengtson & Ors was a case brought by the plaintiff against the first defendants, the sellers of an apartment, and the second defendants, their selling agents, for misleading and deceptive conduct. The plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of an apartment, which was advertised and represented as having three car parks. However, the third car park was not lawfully usable due to a concrete plinth, which the plaintiff was aware of prior to the contract date. The plaintiff sought damages for the reduction in the value of the apartment and other losses claimed to have been suffered as a consequence of entering into the contract of sale.

The court had to decide whether the representations made by the defendants were misleading or deceptive and if the plaintiff knew of the legal impediment at the time of the contract. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff would have entered into the contract in the absence of the representations. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the provision of information and whether any defendant was entitled to apportionment of liability.

The court found that the representations were misleading or deceptive and that the plaintiff did not know of the legal impediment at the time of the contract. The court also found that the plaintiff would have entered into the contract in the absence of the representations. The court held that the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the provision of information, but this did not amount to a breach of that duty. The court held that the second defendant was liable for the separate representation he made, and that the first defendant was also liable for the representations made by the second defendant. The court held that no defendant was entitled to apportionment of liability.

The court ordered that the defendants pay to the plaintiff the sum of $312,037, including $47,037 of interest to the date of the judgment.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Consumer Law

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

  • Duty of Care

  • Compensatory Damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Cited

14

Statutory Material Cited

3

Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52
Holmes v Jones [1907] HCA 35
Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16