ZUVELA & ANOR -v- GEIGER [2007] WASCA 138
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASCA 138 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:146/2005 | 4 APRIL 2007 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA BUSS JA EM HEENAN AJA | 18/07/07 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ZUVELA & ANOR -v- GEIGER [2007] WASCA 138 CORAM : WHEELER JA
- BUSS JA
EM HEENAN AJA
- SUSAN ZUVELA
Appellants
AND
RICHARD GEIGER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : DEANE DCJ
Citation : GEIGER -v- ZUVELA & ANOR [2005] WADC 207
File No : CIV 1147 of 2002
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Sale of goods - Second-hand backhoe machine - Consumer sale - Implied conditions of merchantable quality and/or fitness for purpose - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Silence - Alleged duty to disclose defects - Damages - Cost of effecting repairs - Value of machine sold - Measure of damages for breach of contract and for misleading or deceptive conduct
Legislation:
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA)
Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Continue reading Zuvela v Geiger
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zuvela v Geiger [2007] WASCA 138
- Case
- [2007] WASCA 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether Geiger breached the implied conditions of merchantable quality and/or fitness for purpose under the Australian Consumer Law and whether Geiger misled or deceived Zuvela by not disclosing defects in the machine. The court had to assess the value of the machine sold and the cost of effecting repairs to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the breach of contract and for misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also needed to consider whether there was a duty on Geiger to disclose defects to Zuvela.
The court found that Geiger did not breach the implied conditions of merchantable quality and/or fitness for purpose, as the defects were not significant enough to render the machine unmerchantable or unfit for its intended purpose. The court held that there was no duty on Geiger to disclose the defects, as the defects were not material and did not mislead or deceive Zuvela. The court also found that Zuvela had not suffered any loss as a result of the alleged breaches, as the value of the machine sold was equal to the cost of effecting repairs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders made in the lower court were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.