Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
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
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.
Gillette Australia Pty ltd v Misleading/deceptive The court decided that although
Energizer Australia Pty conduct Energizer was a competitor and
Ltd 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.
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.
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 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)