Tsoutsouras v Wilson - [2007] NSWLC 24

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Tsoutsouras v Wilson [2007] NSWLC 24

JURISDICTION: Civil

PARTIES: Stanley Tsoutsouras
Matthew Wilson

FILE NUMBER: 7523/06

PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre Local Court

DATE OF DECISION:
07/13/2007

MAGISTRATE: Magsitrate B A Lulham

CATCHWORDS: Contract - Sale of Goods Act - whether sale by description - 1972 Ford Falcon GT Sedan

LEGISLATION CITED: Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) s 18
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) ss 40, 42

CASES CITED: Toll v Alphapharm (2004) 219 CLR 164
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited & Anor 54 CLR 50

REPRESENTATION:
Mr Young (Counsel for the Plaintiff)
Harris & Company (Solicitors for the Plaintiff)
Defendant self represented

ORDERS: Judgment for the defendant

BACKGROUND TO DISPUTE

1 In early February 2005 Stanley Tsoutsouras (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) read an advertisement in the February 9th edition of Unique Cars for a Ford sedan as follows:

Ford Falcon GT 1972. 351CI.5. 8 litre, four speed manual, 780 with manual choke, red/black, sedan, LSD, spoiler, competition brake callipers, anti tramp rods. LHF462. Phone 0409112196 Vic $32,000.

2 The plaintiff rang the number and spoke to the car’s owner Matthew Wilson (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’). The two men discussed the genuineness of the car. The plaintiff agreed to purchase it for $28,000. and arranged for the vehicle to be collected in Victoria and brought to Sydney. Some twelve months later the plaintiff attempted to sell the vehicle and was told by prospective purchasers that it was not a genuine 1972 Ford Falcon GT. Expert evidence established that the vehicle was not a genuine 1972 Ford Falcon GT sedan. Such evidence also established that if it was a genuine 1972 Ford Falcon GT it would be worth $50,000, but instead was worth $11,000. The plaintiff sued for the difference of $39,000 plus some other expenses for repainting, repairing and collecting the vehicle from Victoria, making a total claim of $45,118.50.

3 The determination of the plaintiff’s claim will involve the determination of the following issues:

(ii) Was the sale a sale by description, so as to enable the purchaser to rely on the provisions of s 18 of the Sale of Goods Act (NSW) and s 40P of the Fair Trading Act (NSW)?

(iii) Did the defendant negligently represent that the vehicle was a genuine XA GT Falcon?

(iv) If the defendant did represent that the vehicle was a genuine XA GT Falcon, was the defendant guilty of misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 42 of the Fair Trading Act (NSW)?

4 The plaintiff relied on his Affidavit sworn 15 March 2007 (Exh.1). He deposed the following evidence in relation to the purchase of the vehicle;

A person whose voice I now…

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 Tsoutsouras v Wilson

Details

AGLC: Tsoutsouras v Wilson [2007] NSWLC 24
Case: [2007] NSWLC 24
Decision Date: 13/07/2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tsoutsouras v Wilson, the case was heard before the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Tsoutsouras, brought an action against the defendant, Wilson, claiming damages for breach of contract regarding the sale of a 1972 Ford Falcon GT Sedan. The plaintiff alleged that the car sold did not meet the description provided by the defendant and was therefore not in compliance with the Sale of Goods Act.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sale of the Ford Falcon GT Sedan constituted a sale by description under the Sale of Goods Act. The plaintiff contended that the car sold did not match the description given by the defendant, asserting that the vehicle was not a 1972 model as claimed. The court had to determine if the discrepancy between the description and the actual vehicle was significant enough to constitute a breach of the statutory requirement for sale by description.

The court analysed the evidence presented and considered the statutory provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. It found that the description provided by the defendant was not sufficiently precise to constitute a sale by description. The court held that the model year of the car, while a significant attribute, was not the sole defining feature of the car's description. Other factors, such as the car's condition, mileage, and overall appearance, also played a role in determining whether the sale complied with the statutory requirement. The court concluded that the minor discrepancies between the description and the actual vehicle did not amount to a breach of the statutory provision, as the overall condition and attributes of the car were consistent with what was described. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of South Australia delivered judgment in favour of the defendant, Wilson, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages. The reasons for the decision were grounded in the interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act and the assessment of the sale by description requirement. The court's decision was that the discrepancies between the description and the vehicle did not constitute a breach of the statutory requirement, and thus the plaintiff's claim was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendant Reasons for Decision

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Tsoutsouras v Wilson [2007] NSWLC 24
JURISDICTION:	Civil
PARTIES:	Stanley Tsoutsouras Matthew Wilson
FILE NUMBER:	7523/06
PLACE OF HEARING:	Downing Centre Local Court
DATE OF DECISION:	07/13/2007
MAGISTRATE:	Magsitrate B A Lulham
CATCHWORDS:	Contract - Sale of Goods Act - whether sale by description - 1972 Ford Falcon GT Sedan
LEGISLATION CITED:	Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW) s 18 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) ss 40, 42
CASES CITED:	Toll v Alphapharm (2004) 219 CLR 164 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Limited & Anor 54 CLR 50
REPRESENTATION:	Mr Young (Counsel for the Plaintiff) Harris & Company (Solicitors for the Plaintiff) Defendant self represented
ORDERS:	Judgment for the defendant