Where a purchaser of a business induced by misleading or deceptive conduct elects to rescind rather than affirm the contract, the appropriate measure of relief under ss 82 and 87 of the Trade Practices Act is guided by equitable principles of rescission for fraudulent misrepresentation (restitutio in integrum with indemnity for direct losses), not by the tort measure of damages in deceit. A vendor who refuses to accept rescission bears the risk of subsequent deterioration of the business. Interest charges on borrowings are not recoverable as losses flowing from the contravening conduct where the borrowings would have been unserviceable even if the representations had been true.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 106 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 106 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.