Hypothetical by Manny Wood Published in the Coffs Coast Advocate on 22 February 2020.
Robert purchases a stud bull from Max at an auction.
The Auction Brochure describes the bull as a valuable type of Angus bull. Robert purchases the bull for $30,000 for breeding purposes.
Subsequent DNA testing reveals that the bull is not what it seems and is incapable of being registered.
Robert commences action in the District Court alleging that Max has engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
The Judge awards Robert $15,000 being the difference between the amount that Robert paid and the commercial value of the bull.
The Judge awards Robert a further $200,000 on the basis that the bull’s estimated 50 sellable progeny also have a much lesser commercial value.
Max appeals the decision and the matter is heard by the Supreme Court. Max argues that he is not liable because the Auction Brochure contained a disclaimer stating that he, as vendor, was not responsible for the “correctness, use or interpretation of the information of animals” contained in the Brochure.
The Court accepts that Max believed that the description of the bull was accurate and that Robert was aware that no DNA testing had been done prior to the auction.
The Court notes that the font size of the disclaimer was reasonable.
The Court finds, in the circumstances, and particularly given the nature of the disclaimer, that Max had not engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
The Court also states that even if Max was guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct, any compensation that was to be ordered, should be limited to $15,000 because to earn the expected $200,000, the stud bull price would have to have been paid at the auction.
If you would like Manny to address a particular legal issue, send your request to manny.wood@ticliblaxland.com.au or call him on (02) 6648 7487.
