Concrete Construction Case Summary
* Concrete Constructions * Hornsby Building info centre * Taco bell * Bevanere v lvbidinevse
1. It applies to both corporations and natural persons. S131 CCA extends to the corporations and in the ACL to other persons in NSW given effect by s28 of the FTA and similar legislations in other states and territories.
2. No. Refer to Hornsby Building case.
3. The operation of “trade and commerce” should be restricted to conduct that is towards persons with whom it has or may have dealings in the course of those activities or transactions which of their nature, bear a trading or commerce character. The case of Hearn and Orouke revisited the original Concrete Constructions definition.
Lubidineuse case: Whether or not selling the …show more content…
Barto v GPR Mgmt Services Pty Ltd: It is true that an employment contract does not immediately produce income but the creation of the contract is commercial conduct, it is directed to the creation of the contractual relationship. Negotiations for an initial employment contract with a person who is not presently employed and negotiations with a person who is an employee does not differ. In each case, the contract is commercial in nature.
Martin Development Resources – As the last mention passage makes clear, Wilcox has decided a striker application. Even if the claim was justly argued, the application had to fail. In the present case, I am ofcourse considering the issue at a final hearing but in any event, I will respectively disagree with Wilcox. The majority rejected the wider construction of “in trade or commerce” which will extend to any activity of a …show more content…
How does the sale fit into the totality of D’s activities? (Lubidineuse, CC). How the land is used and will be used?
1. One unit is being sold by the owner occupier as a private sale: Directly apply O’Brien – there is no misleading or deceptive conduct because the sale of a home cannot be classified as a trade or commerce
2. Another unit is being sold by the real estate agent on behalf of an owner occupier. RA also claims the view can never be built out: RA is liable but the principal, is not because provided that the principal is not selling the property as part of the business in trade or commerce (Arguie v Bluntz)
3. Two units are owned by a vendor who lives in one and rents out another. Assures Betty and Jim that the view could never be built out: It is possible to suggest that the one who lives in has a private sale exemption (Arguie, O’Brien) therefore, not in trade or commerce. The second one is also debatable - consider Lubidineuse – is this type of sale the type of sale the vendor regularly conducts? Is it a one-off? It is possible that the property was clearly a money making venture, that you could assess in the totality of the facts that it was likely to be found in trade or commerce. We could inquire as to the motives of selling – further develop the
1. It applies to both corporations and natural persons. S131 CCA extends to the corporations and in the ACL to other persons in NSW given effect by s28 of the FTA and similar legislations in other states and territories.
2. No. Refer to Hornsby Building case.
3. The operation of “trade and commerce” should be restricted to conduct that is towards persons with whom it has or may have dealings in the course of those activities or transactions which of their nature, bear a trading or commerce character. The case of Hearn and Orouke revisited the original Concrete Constructions definition.
Lubidineuse case: Whether or not selling the …show more content…
Barto v GPR Mgmt Services Pty Ltd: It is true that an employment contract does not immediately produce income but the creation of the contract is commercial conduct, it is directed to the creation of the contractual relationship. Negotiations for an initial employment contract with a person who is not presently employed and negotiations with a person who is an employee does not differ. In each case, the contract is commercial in nature.
Martin Development Resources – As the last mention passage makes clear, Wilcox has decided a striker application. Even if the claim was justly argued, the application had to fail. In the present case, I am ofcourse considering the issue at a final hearing but in any event, I will respectively disagree with Wilcox. The majority rejected the wider construction of “in trade or commerce” which will extend to any activity of a …show more content…
How does the sale fit into the totality of D’s activities? (Lubidineuse, CC). How the land is used and will be used?
1. One unit is being sold by the owner occupier as a private sale: Directly apply O’Brien – there is no misleading or deceptive conduct because the sale of a home cannot be classified as a trade or commerce
2. Another unit is being sold by the real estate agent on behalf of an owner occupier. RA also claims the view can never be built out: RA is liable but the principal, is not because provided that the principal is not selling the property as part of the business in trade or commerce (Arguie v Bluntz)
3. Two units are owned by a vendor who lives in one and rents out another. Assures Betty and Jim that the view could never be built out: It is possible to suggest that the one who lives in has a private sale exemption (Arguie, O’Brien) therefore, not in trade or commerce. The second one is also debatable - consider Lubidineuse – is this type of sale the type of sale the vendor regularly conducts? Is it a one-off? It is possible that the property was clearly a money making venture, that you could assess in the totality of the facts that it was likely to be found in trade or commerce. We could inquire as to the motives of selling – further develop the