Home > Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
McWilliam's Wines v McDonald's System of Australia
- contract; vitiating circumstances; s52 TPA; misleading conduct
- Facts: wine name Big Mac, McDonalds claimed misleading conduct, consumers might think wine hamburger.
- Issue: Was McWilliam's conduct likely to mislead consumers?
- Decision: No.
- Reason: Potential consumers might wonder if business connection, but advertisement did not in any way suggest connection. If anyone made mistake, not because of McWilliam's conduct.
- Misleading conduct established:1. what group of persons conduct aimed at.
- 2. able to be inferred those persons were likely, in the circumstances, to be misled because of conduct.
Yorke v Treasureway Stores
- contract; vitiating circumstances; s52 TPA; misleading conduct; liability of principal and agent
- Facts: Treasureway appointed Ross Lucas as agent, obtained financial info, passed onto Yorke. Yorke relied on info, suffered loss.
- Issue: Were both Treasureway and Ross Lucas liable?
- Decision: Yes.
- Reason: Corporation acted honestly, reasonably, still liable, if likely to mislead, or has misled.
- To avoid liability, Ross Lucas should have disclaimed responsibility for accuracy of info.
Concrete Constructions v Nelson
- trade practices; misleading conduct; meaning of "in trade or commerce"
- Facts: Concrete Constructions construct building for company. Foreman of company misleading info to Nelson - employee of Concrete Constructions. Nelson injured.
- Nelson wished to claim damages, company had, through foreman, engaged in misleading conduct in trade/commerce.
- Issue: Did act of giving misleading info to employee take place "in trade/commerce"?
- Decision: No. Giving info not part of company's commercial/trading activities.
- Reason: only conduct which is itself an aspect/element of activities/transactions - nature, bear a trading/commercial character.
- e.g. driving truck to deliver goods to buyer - trade/commerce.
- Failure of driver of truck to give correct signal while driving - not.
Garry Rogers Motors v Subaru
- contract; vitiating circumstances; s51 TPA; unconscionable conduct
- Facts: GRM franchise agreement with Subaru, GRM unwilling to comply with new requirements, Subaru terminate.
- Issue: Was Subaru's decision to terminate breach of s51 TPA?
- Decision: No unconscionable conduct
- Reason: s51 - failure to comply with industry code of conduct - factor which may indicate unconscionable conduct.
- Reasonable notice of termination given in writing, including reasons for decision.
- In this case - 13 months notice, not in writing.
- Court held although aspect of code not complied with, insufficient in itself to amount to unconscionable conduct.