Choo v Zhang

[2016] NSWCA 193

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Consumer Law
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Representations
4. › Whether statement amounted to representation alleged
5. › Whether unequivocal disclaimer that representor had not read document precluded finding of representation as to document's contents
6. › Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, s 18(1)
1. Consumer Law
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Damages
4. › Assessment of loss or damage
5. › Whether claimant entitled to recover full price paid for asset
6. › Requirement to separate losses from extraneous or supervening causes
7. › Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, s 236(1)

Quick Take

A person who expressly states they have not read a document cannot be found to have represented that the document's contents accord with a prior agreement, even where the representee is vulnerable and reliant on the representor. The unequivocal disclaimer precludes the assurance from being interpreted as a representation about the document's contents. Separately, a claimant induced to acquire an asset by misleading conduct does not establish entitlement to recover the full price paid merely by proving they would not have acquired the asset but for the conduct; losses attributable to extraneous or supervening factors must be separated out.