Breach of contract - Sale of strata lot - Vendor's warranty - General Conditions - No knowledge of anything materially affecting use or enjoyment - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Representation by contract - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Private sale of land - Whether sale occurred in trade or commerce
Legislation:
Australian Consumer Law (Cth), s 18 Australian Consumer Law (WA), s 18
Result:
Judgment for plaintiff granting recission of contract and damages
On 20 May 2015, the plaintiff, Sarah Thillagaratnam, entered into a contract with the defendants, Henry Doan…
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 Thillagaratnam v Doan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Thillagaratnam v Doan [2022] WASC 185
Case
[2022] WASC 185
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sarah Thillagaratnam brought a claim against Henry Doan and Thi Van Anh Nguyen seeking recission of a contract of sale of property and damages for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and misleading or deceptive conduct. The claim arose from the disruptive conduct of Laurence Pratt, the neighbour who lived in the first floor unit immediately above the unit purchased by Ms Thillagaratnam. The trial lasted for five days. The court found that Mr Pratt engaged in antisocial behaviour during the time that Mr Doan and Ms Nguyen were resident in the unit and that Mr Doan and Ms Nguyen failed to inform Ms Thillagaratnam of Mr Pratt's behaviour. The court found that the failure to disclose Mr Pratt's conduct constituted a breach of contract and a fraudulent misrepresentation. The court found that the defendants' conduct did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The court granted Ms Thillagaratnam recission of the contract and damages.