Case Principle Details

Contract Powell v Lee (1908) Communication of -No agreement was formed

Law 24TLR 606 acceptance within board and Powell.
-Agreement communicated by
the member acting without
authority was invalid

Thomas v Thomas (1842) Consideration needs -The consideration of £1 per

2 QB 851 not be adequate year in return for the right to
occupy the house was clearly
not adequate, but it was still of
legal value-> sufficient contract.

Ermogenous v Greek Commerical /business -intention to create legal

Orthodox Community of agreement relations (formality of context)
SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR -end of presumption
95

Roscorla v Thomas Past Consideration -Payment of the purchase price

not sufficient consideration
because that had occurred
before Thomas’ promise was
made->past consideration.

Masters v Cameron 1954 Preliminary Agreements -contract not legally bound until
91CLR 353 a formal contract of sale was
prepared because the
agreement gave Cameron’s
solicitors the power to
considerably alter the terms of
the agreement.

Ipex Software Services Past consideration -Hosking had transferred his

Pty Ltd v Hosking [2000] business before the promise
VSCA 239 was made, he had done so at
the controller’s request and in
expectation of a formal
promise. The controller’s
promise was legally
enforceable by Hosking

Srilk v Myrick (1809) Prior legal obligation promise was not legally
enforceable <-crew had not
provided sufficient
consideration in return for the
promise. Contractual obligation
is not consideration
Walton Stores Ltd v Promissory estoppel Maher could rely on promissory
Maher estoppel which extends to
representations or promises as
to future conduct. Mahers had
relied upon Waltons’ promise
and would suffer material
disadvantage if the promise
was not kept

Giumelli v Giumelli Promissory estoppel requirements of promissory

estoppel were satisfied: the son
had relied upon the promise to
his detriment by not pursuing
other employment opportunities

Central London Property Promissory estoppel CLPT was not entitled to break
Trust LTD v High Trees its promise that the rent
House payable during the war would
be halved, even though HTH
had not provided any
consideration for the promise.
To allow CLPT to break its
promise in these circumstances
would have been inequitable
and unfair.

L’Estrange v F Graucob Express Terms L’Estrange was bound by the

Ltd [1934] contract, including the term that
excluded the operation of the
implied conditions and
warranties. The fact that
L’Estrange had not read the
contract was irrelevant; by
signing the contract he was
deemed to have agreed to all of
the written terms of the
contract.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Reasonable Notice disclaimer had not become a

Parking Ltd [1971] term of the contract between
Thornton and SLP because
Thornton did not know of it and
SLP had not done what was
reason​ably sufficient to bring it
to his notice. The contract was
formed at the time Thornton
paid at the ticket machine upon
entering the car park, and could
not later be altered by anything
printed on the ticket.
 Derry v Peek (1889)
Curtis v Chemical
Cleaning & dyeing Co
White v John Warwick
Springer v Great Western
Railway Co [1921]
Van Den Esschert v
Chappel
De Lasalle v Guildford
Consumer ACCC V Telstra
Law Coorporation
Gillette Australia Pty ltd v
Energizer Australia Pty
Ltd
Misrepresentation statement in the prospectus
about PDDT’s right to use
steam was true and that they
had not been careless as to
whether what had been stated
was true or false. The fact that
they were mistaken in
assuming the consent of the
Board of Trade would follow as
a matter of course was not
sufficient to make the statement
fraudulent.
Disclaimer Misrepresentation of effect of
disclaimer-> can’t rely
Disclaimer Not clear from discalimer
whether it extended to personal
injuries from Jwc own
negligence-> cant rely. Contra
Proferenteum (court try to seek
against party replying on it)
Agency The court decided that GWRC
was not an agency of necessity
because the third requirement
was not satisfied: GWRC could
have contacted Springer for
express instructions but did
not-> liabel for damage.
Parol Evidence rule Written contract had no
reference to the issue raised by
plaintiff -> parol evidence dont
apply
Collateral contract Assurance from
party=assurance to enter
contract => breached collateral
contract.
Misleading/deceptive did not sufficiently communicate
conduct the information to potential
customers despite using
disclaimer.
Misleading/deceptive The court decided that although
conduct Energizer was a competitor and
not a consumer it was entitled
to bring an action under TPA s
52 for misleading conduct.
ACCC V Meriton Misleading/deceptive Meriton reduced the number of
conduct negative reviews. Even if
methods of brand endorsement
change, you must not lead
customers astray about the
standard and nature of your
services.

ACCC v We Buy Houses False/misleading made false or misleading

representation representations in promoting a
number of wealth creation
strategies involving real estate,
breached ACL.

Taco Company of Misleading/Deceptive First, it is necessary to identify

Australia Inc v Taco Bell conduct the relevant section by
Pty Ltd (1982) reference to whom the question
of whether the conduct is, or is
likely to be, misleading or
deceptive falls to be tested.
Second, once the relevant
section of the public is
established, the matter is to be
considered by reference to all
who come within it, including
the astute and the gullible

Henjo Investment pty ltd v Deceptive conduct-> It does not matter if the conduct
Collins Marrickville ltd ACL s18 is unintentional, or the business
did not intend the conduct to be
misleading. In establishing a
contravention of ACL s 18, the
intention of the business is
irrelevant.

Concrete Constructions Conduct needs be in Statements made in a political

(NSW) PTY LTD v trade/commerce or educational context are not
Nelson in trade or commerce and are,
therefore, not covered by ACL s
18.

Aanand & Thomson Pty Misleading/deceptive In order to determine whether

Ltd v TPC conduct conduct is misleading or
deceptive, the standard to be
expected of those in the target
audience, in making the
decision to purchase. The
question is not whether the
purchaser was deceived but
whether the conduct was
misleading or deceptive.
Henderson v Pioneer Misleading/deceptive Overall impression created by
Homes Pty Ltd conduct the advertisement was a
misleading one, even though
the advertisement contained all
of the correct information.

Accc v Coles Supermaket Misleading/deceptive Whether the use of the phrases

conduct “baked today, sold today”,
“freshly baked”, “baked fresh”
and “freshly baked in-store” is
misleading where the complete
baking process is not
undertaken in-store on the day

Accc v Thermomix in misleading/decpetive by not quickly informing

Australia conduct customers, Thermomix
seriously contravened
Australian Consumer Law
(ACL) by knowingly exposing
consumers to serious risk. In
addition, Thermomix also
misrepresented to customers
that they were not entitled for
refund or replacement when,
under ACL, they were.

Given v Pryor misleading/deceptive A proposal for a subdivision

conduct contained the statement ‘a
wonderful place to live’. The
court decided that this was an
exaggeration and misleading
and deceptive conduct because
the zoning requirements
prohibited the development of
dwellings.

Harnell v Sharp False representation of Sharp Corporation of Australia

corporation of Australia goods/services Pty Ltd falsely claimed that
‘every Sharp microwave oven is
tested and approved by the
Standards Association of
Australia’. The court decided
that this was a false
representation that goods were
of a particular standard.

Effem Foods Ltd v Defences to liability manufacturer was unable to

Nicholls Acceptable quality of avail itself of
goods the defence that goods were
not merchantable by reason of
an act of another person
 (s74D(2)(a)(i)), even though it
was able to lead evidence that
the possibility of the defect
arising
during manufacture was remote

Graham Barclay Oysters Defences Council had no control over the

ltd v Ryan outbreak of contamination.

Competition TPC v Australian Meat Market market was the market for the
Law Holdings Pty Ltd slaughtering (the functional
dimension) of cattle (the
product dimension) that had to
be fattened before slaughter
(the temporal dimension) in
northern Queensland (the
geographic dimension).

TPC v TNT Australia Pty Cartel Conduct The companies agreed not to
Ltd poach each other’s customers.
When customers moved from
one company to another, the
companies paid compensation
to each other-> fines of $11
million were imposed.

ACCC v Visy Industries Price fixing/market agreed to maintain their

Holdings Pty Ltd sharing respective market shares and
not to deal with each other’s
customers, increases in prices
were agreed in each year,
prices were agreed in respect
of particular customers-> fined

TPC v Email Cartel Email and Warburton Franki

Conduct->requirement were the only manufacturers
1 with Email as market leader.
Market Leader Email and Warburton Franki
engaged in parallel pricing: they
issued identical price lists, they
sent their respective price lists
to each other, and they
submitted identical tenders for
contracts-> no price fixing due
to market force

TPC v JW Bryant Pty Ltd Primary Boycott A trade association threatened

to expel some of its members
fruit and vegetable marketers
because of their refusal to
charge certain costs to
 customers as required by an
association resolution.
Expulsion would have limited
the marketers’ ability to acquire
goods. The court decided that
this was an exclusionary
provision.

TPC v Massey Ferguson Exclusive dealing offered to supply tractors to a

Ltd dealer on the condition that the
dealer not stock a competitor’s
products. In addition, MF twice
refused to supply dealers
because they had either bought
elsewhere or had not agreed
not to ->substantially lessening
competition in that
market->fined.

Re Queensland Anti-competitive effective competition requires

Co-operative Milling Conduct both that prices should be
Association Ltd flexible, reflecting the forces of
demand and supply, and that
there should be independent
rivalry in all dimensions of the
price-product-service packages
offered to consumers and
customers.

ACCC v Telstra Corp Ltd Penalties the court took into account a
range of factors including the
following in Telstra’s favour: •
There was no proof of a
deliberate decision to engage in
anti-competitive conduct. • The
various failures in
communication, training, and
management had been
addressed by Telstra. • Telstra
had cooperated, accepted
responsibility for the breaches,
and admitted liability in court. •
The ACCC could not prove that
Telstra’s actions had caused
any actual loss to the access
seekers.
Liability determined by civil
(balance of p)

ACCC v Pfizer Market power-> deter offered significant discount<-

competition conditional on buying minimum
volume on pfizer products and
reduce re-supply of competing
power

required a business with

substantial market power to
take advantage of its market
power for a specified
anti-competitive purpose.

-> didn’t accept the ACCC’s

argument that Pfizer had acted
for the purpose of substantially
lessening competition or
deterring or preventing
competitors from competing.