Shelton v Oaktech Pty Ltd

The appellant, Mr. Shelton, a mechanical repairer, purchased a large industrial shed from Oaktech Pty Ltd, a manufacturer of garages and sheds, for his business in Alice Springs. The dispute arose when the shed's doors were damaged by strong winds, despite the respondent's original quote advising that they could not guarantee the doors' performance in high wind conditions. The final contract made no reference to this reservation, and the doors were smaller than initially quoted. The appellant sought damages for breach of the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under the Australian Consumer Law. The court had to decide whether the reservation regarding the doors' performance in high winds applied and if the appellant was aware of it, and whether the trial judge's reasons for rejecting certain evidence were adequate.

The court considered whether the original reservation applied to the final contract and whether the appellant was aware of it. The court held that the appellant was not aware of the reservation, as the final contract made no reference to it, and the appellant had not been given the opportunity to address the issue. The court also considered whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellant for not calling the respondent's agent to testify, under the rule in Jones v Dunkel. The court held that the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the evidence were adequate, as the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for not calling the respondent's agent.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The trial judge was required to consider the extent of the appellant's entitlement to damages, contributory negligence, and the quantum of damages. The trial judge was also required to consider the evidence regarding the cost of rectification. The parties were to be heard on the question of costs.