Mr Sandeep bought an Indian restaurant in the CBD from Ms Manpreet in January 2017 for $300,000. At the time that the contract of the sale of business was signed, the business was fully operational but the contract failed to specify the items included and excluded from the sale. Mr Sandeep assumed that everything was included in the sale, though nothing was stated at the time of inspection.
However, after the sale, Mr Sandeep realised that quite a few items were taken from the restaurant, including a Combi oven, cash register, and table and chairs. He would have paid less for the business, perhaps $230,000 if he had of known that the items that were eventually taken would be excluded from the contract.
He wants to know if he is entitled to the taken items and if so the remedies available to him.
Solve the issues as to whether the items are fixtures, who owns the items, and whether there are any remedies available to Mr Sandeep.
Ms Xiao, is the owner of a luxurious ‘Alpine Bus Line’ based in the CBD that provides elite services to select passengers to the various ski resorts in New South Wales and Victoria during the ski season and to the Australian High Country all year round. During the 2016 ski season, Mrs. Peppy, a passenger, had her very expensive luggage and contents stolen, totally $100,000. The luggage contained a pair of ‘Foil Skiis – Oro Nero’ worth $12,000, a Luois Vuitton Luggage set worth $60,000, along with a number of haute couture and pret-a-porter clothing.
Ms Xiao believes that it must have occurred at one of the refueling stops along the trip and it is not her or her employee’s fault. Mrs Peppy has commenced legal action against Ms Xiao for a breach of bailment.
Solve the issue as to whether there has been a breach of bailment.
Helen started a homeware and giftware business in the leafy and trendy inner city suburb of Point Leopardi. When Helen was setting up her retail outlet, she attended a gift fair at the Exhibition Centre that promoted the latest fashionable gifts for every occasion. Helen attended the fair on the last day hoping to strike a bargain with the stall holders. She managed to get ‘the bargain of a life time’ from a shall holder. She agreed to pay for a shop full of gifts at below wholesaler prices. Helen paid a 10% deposit for all the gifts in the stall and although the stall holder was prepared to hand over the gifts to Helen immediately, they agreed to Helen’s request that the gifts be stored in the stall overnight. Helen was then to pick them all up from the shelf in the morning with a hire truck.
During the night, the Exhibition Centre was broken into and the gifts stolen from the stall. Helen was disappointed but was shocked when she received a letter from the stall holder demanding that Helen pay the remainder of the cost of the gifts. Until she received the letter, Helen had thought that she would get her deposit back. In the letter, the stall holder claimed that Helen was the owner of the goods and that if she didn’t pay she would sue her under the relevant Goods Act.
Solve the issues as to whether Helen must pay for the gifts or is entitled to her deposit back under the relevant Goods Act.
John started a tennis training school in January 2015 and utilises his home tennis court in his one-acre large backyard. John’s business has grown to 50 paying school children each term and decided to invest in more facilities to better handle the increasing student population.
In December 2016, he resurfaced one tennis court and added two more expensive courts at a total cost of $60,000 from a brochure given to him by the supplier/installer. The supplier/installer patented a new child friendly tennis court with a “smooth, soft, and flawless” surface. This surface was recommended to John by the supplier/installer as being suitable for his tennis training business.
However, John was displeased with the courts because cracks appeared on all the courts, making the bounce of the balls unpredictable and difficult to teach tennis. The supplier/installer inspected the cracks and determined that this was the result of ground movement caused by the recent floods and not the product or poor installation.
John would like to know what he can do about the situation.
Solve the issue as to whether John has any recourse under the relevant Goods Act.
