Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc v Chapman No. Scgrg-98-681 Judgment No. S491 - [1999] SASC 491

SOUTHERN CROSS HOMES (BROKEN HILL) INC v CHAPMAN
[1999] SASC 491

Magistrates Appeal

DEBELLE J. The respondent (plaintiff) had sued to recover the cost of 60 commode chairs he had sold to the appellant (defendant). The cost of the chairs was $22,200. Upon the failure of the defendant to pay for the chairs, the plaintiff issued proceedings out of the Adelaide Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrate allowed the claim. The defendant appeals against that decision.
The plaintiff is the agent for Australian Medical Chair and Trolley Co (“AMC”). Among other things, AMC manufactures commode chairs including a model called “Grevillea”. The defendant operates two nursing homes for elderly people in Broken Hill. The administrator of the nursing homes is Mr Quinn. His wife is the director of nursing. She is known as Matron Bains. The two nursing homes are called St Anne’s and Centenary. It had been decided to refurbish St Anne’s. Matron Bains decided that new commode chairs should be obtained to replace the existing ones which had a seat which was heavy to remove. She had also decided to use commode pots in commode chairs instead of bed pans.
A brochure had been published advertising AMC products including the Grevillea commode chair. Matron Bains had seen the brochure. She was attracted by the fact that it could be used with commode pots. On 14 January 1997 she rang the plaintiff enquiring about the Grevillea chair. In the course of the conversation, Matron Bains asked whether commode pots could be used with the chair. The plaintiff said that they could. She asked for a sample chair to be sent to St Anne’s for inspection. The plaintiff agreed. There was a dispute as to the conditions on which the sample chair was provided. Matron Bains gave evidence that the plaintiff had said that, if the chair had any smells when returned, the nursing home would be required to keep it. The plaintiff denied that he had imposed such a condition. He said that he would not have done so because he knew that the chair was being examined for its suitability. The magistrate made no finding on this issue.
The chair was sent to the nursing home on 15 January and was inspected by a number of people. The inspection occurred over a period of about three to four days. The inspection was only visual. It did not extend to fitting a pan or pot in the chair and testing it to assess its suitability. This was surprising, given that it was intended to use commode pots and not bed pans which had previously been used at St Anne’s. Although St Anne’s used bed pans and not commode pots, commode pots could have been obtained from the Centenary Nursing Home. According to Matron Bains, she was deterred from conducting a test because of the plaintiff’s condition that the chair should not smell when returned. The chair was approved. The defendant decided to buy 60 Grevillea commode chairs. On 20 January 1997…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc v Chapman No. Scgrg-9...

Details

AGLC: Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc v Chapman No. Scgrg-98-681 Judgment No. S491 [1999] SASC 491
Case: [1999] SASC 491
Decision Date: 15 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc, acting as an agent for Australian Medical Chair and Trolley Co, sued Chapman, who operates two nursing homes, to recover the cost of 60 commode chairs supplied. The total cost of the chairs was $22,200. After Chapman failed to pay, Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc initiated proceedings in the Adelaide Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrate allowed the claim, and Chapman appeals that decision. The central issue before the court was whether the commode chairs were fit for their intended purpose and of merchantable quality, as well as whether there was any misrepresentation that would permit Chapman to reject the chairs.

The court found that Chapman had not made its specific purpose known to Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc. Chapman only indicated a desire for commode chairs that could accommodate both commode pots and bed pans. The Grevillea chairs met this requirement, and there was no indication that Chapman sought chairs that could entirely prevent spillage or leakage. Additionally, there was no warranty from Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc that the chairs would prevent leakage or spillage. The inspection conducted by Chapman did not extend to testing the chairs with commode pots, and the court concluded that Chapman was not relying on Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc’s skill or judgment. Therefore, there was no implied condition that the chairs were fit for the purpose of preventing spillage or leakage, and the chairs were of merchantable quality. The court also found no misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act or the Fair Trading Act, as nothing in the brochure or statements by Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc misrepresented the chairs’ features. The Manufacturers Warranties Act did not apply as Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc was not the manufacturer.

Given these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision that Chapman was liable for the cost of the chairs.

Orders