Tropeano v Riboni

In the case of Tropeano v Riboni, the plaintiff, Tropeano, sought a balance of the purchase price for an accountancy practice from the defendant, Riboni. Tropeano also claimed money due under a promissory note. Riboni counter-claimed, alleging breaches of the sale agreement, misleading conduct, and breach of a restraint of trade clause. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the enforceability of the restraint of trade clause in the sale agreement, which was of indefinite duration, and whether Riboni had breached the restraint clause by continuing to practice accountancy. The court also needed to assess Tropeano's claims for the balance of the purchase price and money due under the promissory note, and to decide on Riboni's counter-claims.

The court found that the restraint of trade clause was valid despite its indefinite duration, as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to protect Tropeano's business interests. The court determined that Riboni had breached the restraint clause by continuing to practice accountancy, and awarded damages to Tropeano. The court further found that Tropeano was entitled to the balance of the purchase price and the money due under the promissory note, and dismissed Riboni's counter-claims.

The court ordered Riboni to pay Tropeano the outstanding balance of the purchase price, the amount due under the promissory note, and damages for breach of the restraint of trade clause. The court also dismissed Riboni's counter-claims in their entirety.