Well drafted warranties offer purchasers protection by providing an avenue to seek recovery in the event that what is acquired turns out to be different than what it was represented to be by the seller.

This article looks at a case involving a share sale agreement and the outcome achieved when action was taken against the seller due to a breach of warranties offered in the share sale agreement to the purchaser.

The High Court deemed a tertiary college’s enrolment processes to be unconscionable for creating a risk of unsuitable student enrolment and found that  senior management may be held liable as accessories for the actions of the business if they were aware of the primary matters which made the conduct unreasonable. 

The High Court of Australia’s judgment in Mallonland Pty Ltd & Anor v Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 25 emphasised the significance of incorporating clearly written disclaimers on your product’s packaging to limit your liability for pure economic loss claims in negligence.

A company director’s request to redeem money from a unit trust has been rejected by the Court. The New South Wales Supreme Court ruling emphasises the need for clear documentation of intended transactions within a company structure.

The specific wording of a contract is crucial to its interpretation and may be beneficial or a trap to parties. Many parties fail to understand the implications that the well-known phrase ‘subject to contract’ will have on their agreements. Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 is the leading Australian case which examines the consequences of certain wording on parties to a contract, and whether such wording leads to an enforceable and binding contract. 

On 1 August 2024, the Magistrates Court of Queensland found Peak Physique Franchisor Group Pty Ltd (Peak Physique) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and was in breach of section 18 Australian Consumer Law through its conduct which induced the purchase of one of their premises through representations of ongoing support to the franchisee and the profitability of the franchise purchased.

On 18 January 2023 the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of Skyworkers Pty Limited (in Liquidation) v Murace [2023] FCA 14. The decision resulted in Liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against Mr Murace being struck out and costs awarded to the defendant, although the liquidator was then allowed to file a further statement of claim.

Guidance has been provided to liquidators by the Federal Court of Australia in Stone (Liquidator), in the matter of RIC Admin Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mandalinic (No 2) regarding the analysis of financial records required to determine the solvency of a company and what conduct of a director will constitute an unreasonable director related transaction.

On 4 June 2024 the Federal Court of Australia handed down the decision of Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCA. This decision resulted in the Fair Work Ombudsman penalising the Australian franchisor of the 85 Degrees brand $1.44 million for its “systemic failure to ensure compliance within its franchise network” which included underpayments at several of their Sydney franchisee outlets.

The ACCC has announced its enforcement and compliance priorities for 2024-2025. This article explores what this may mean for franchises.