FACTS
The Larsens contracted with Tastec Pty Ltd to supply and assemble a prefabricated house, specifying Maxline 340 cladding for the roof and walls.
Tastec proposed a variation substituting Bondor 580 panels, misrepresenting them as a customised “Extraline 294” product of equal or superior quality. Relying on that representation, the Larsens executed the variation.
When they discovered the true nature of the substitution, they sued under ss 18, 236 and 237 of the ACL for misleading or deceptive conduct. The District Court dismissed the claim, finding no economic loss. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
ISSUE
Can an owner misled into agreeing to a contractual variation recover rectification costs (rather than market-value difference) under the ACL?
FINDING…
…
Find Us Where Business Thrives!
Level 11, 456 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
Level 13, 111 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia
Level 10, 95 North Quay, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia
