Demagogue P/L v Ramensky, N [1992] FCA 851 - BarNet Jade - BarNet Jade

Tags

Top Highlights

• one of the circumstances that led the primary judge to conclude that there had been misleading and deceptive conduct.

• Moreover, the express representations by Demagogue were such as to indicate that there was nothing unusual at all about this aspect of the development.

• The vendor was silent as to conditions which might affect the continued existence of the licence

• if, prior to their entry into the contract the respondents had been aware of the circumstances that then obtained concerning the Road Licence and access to the site they would not have entered into the contract, and that it was probable that they would not have entered into the contract at any time.

• does not impose, as a requirement for effective rescission, that a party who has been induced to enter into a contract by a misrepresentation must have suffered loss and damage in the sense of a loss for which a pecuniary award may be made

• was an unusual and unexpected circumstance and, to the respondents, unexpected.

• hat it did not state or make any reference to was that the only practicable vehicular access to the land would be from Edgar Bennett Avenue, and that since at least October 1987 the