Legal Groundup

Legal Studies from the ground up

Application Excercise 3y

Question 1

Alati v Kruger [1955] HCA 64

FACTS: Kruger paid for Alati’s fruit businessandtook possession. He discovered that the weekly takings were a quarter of what Alati represented to him.

ISSUE: Whether the contract betweenKruger andAlati could be rescinded.

JUDGMENT: The High Court found that Kruger had rescinded the contract, andordered that Alati repay the purchase price plus interest, in exchange for returning any property transferred at thetime of sale.


Powlett v Archibald [2014] VCC 405

FACTS: Ms Archibald entered contracts to purchase two relocatable houses fromPowlett, which he promised to transport to her Daylesford property anderect as holiday rentals. Powlett failed to deliver the houses to her property.

ISSUE: WhetherArchibald was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

JUDGMENT: The Court of Appealdecided that Archibald was not entitled to damages for pain, suffering anddistress arising from the breach of contract, but that she was entitled todamages for loss of income and opportunity arising from the impact on herplanned holiday rental business.


Patterson v Russell (Civil Claims) [2017] VCAT 30 (6 January 2017)

FACTS: Patterson agreed topurchase a car from Russell.When he returned to collect the car, it did not have any of these features that hadbeen listed in the advertisement and promised by Russell.

ISSUE: WhetherArchibald was entitled to restitution for breach of contract.

JUDGMENT: VCAT concluded that Russell had engaged in misleading advertising, and had breached the contract of sale. TheVCAT member ordered that Russell pay $2410 in restitution.


APT Technology Pty Ltd v Aladesaye [2014] FCA 966

FACTS: APT terminated Aladesaye’s employment after they discovered that he had set up his own business in competition with APT.APT brought a breach of contract action against Aladesaye, asking the court for an interim injunction to restrain him from contacting APT’s clients.

ISSUE: WhetherAPT was entitled to askfor an interim injunction to restrain Aladesayefrom contacting its clients.

JUDGMENT: The Federal Court decidedthat there was a serious issue to be tried, and granted the interim injunction for a period of five months.


Luhan v Micallef [2017] VSC 246

FACTS: The Luhans agreed to purchase Micallef’s property, and paid a deposit.Micallef regretted agreeing to sell the property and did not complete the sale on the settlement date.

ISSUE: Whether the Luhans could ask the court to make an order for specific performance.

JUDGMENT: The court made an order of specific performance, transferring the land to the Luhans.


Question 2

In the Alati v Kruger case, recission was the most appropriate remedy asKruger had grounds for cancelling the contract from the beginning, and Alati was in a position to restore Kruger to his original state before the contract commenced.

In the Powlett v Archibald case, damages was the most appropriate remedy as damages put Ms Archibald in the same position she would have been in, if the contract had been performed.

In the Patterson v Russell case, restitution was the most appropriate remedy as Patterson had paid for a car that was not supplied as described.

In the APT Technology Pty Ltd v Aladesayecase, an interim injunction was the most appropriate remedy to protect the interests of the employer.

In the Luhan v Micallef case, specific performance was the most appropriateremedy as the Luhans had done nothing wrong and the terms of the contract needed to be met. It was appropriate in this case for the court to order that the defendant perform the contract that she had originally agreed to.