Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: case law ( Answered 4 out of 5 stars,   0 Comments )
Question  
Subject: case law
Category: Business and Money
Asked by: michaelmoloney-ga
List Price: $50.00
Posted: 04 Feb 2004 20:34 PST
Expires: 05 Mar 2004 20:34 PST
Question ID: 303723
I am looking for a Federal Court decision relating to misleading
conduct concerning overcharging re motor vehicle repairs.I believe the
case had the name Raceway in it and the judge was Mr Justice Willcox

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 05 Feb 2004 06:49 PST
Hello Michael,

A few question, please, to assist me in my search:

--Are you certain this is a Federal court case (as opposed to a state
or local court)?

--Do you have any idea of the timing -- is this a case decided in the
past year?  In the past five years?  From a long time ago?

--Do you think this case was written up in newspapers, or would it be
better to concentrate searches on case law search sites?

--Lastly, if there is anything else you can remember -- a city or
state...where/how/when you heard about the case...additional details
about the misconduct, or anything else...any more information would be
a great help.

Thanks.

Clarification of Question by michaelmoloney-ga on 05 Feb 2004 17:12 PST
Sorry for the delay.I think willcox is a Federal Court Judge-you could
check this.I am sorry but I dont know when the case was.To put it in
perspective I believe I have been grossly overcharged in relation to a
Bently motor car by a repairer.The repairer gave a quote and basically
charged me more than six times the quote without authority.I was told
there is a case right on the point decided by Willcox.The are trade
practices issues,fair trading issues contract issues and perhaps
fraud.If you cant find this case there are probably similar cases on
the point.Thanks.

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 05 Feb 2004 19:52 PST
I believe I can find you some state level precedent if you'll tell me
what state this took place in.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 05 Feb 2004 20:18 PST
Hmmm...I'm not having much luck on the Judge Willcox connection, but I
have found a case that seems awfully germane to your circumstances:

"Appellants are representatives of a certified class of consumers who
purchased non-warranty repair services from various Mercedes-Benz
dealerships throughout the country between March 27, 1970, and the
time of trial. The appellees are Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft, the
German parent company; Mercedes-Benz of North America Holding Company,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary;  [**3]  and Mercedes-Benz of North
America, Inc. (MBNA), the wholly owned subsidiary of the holding
company. Appellants' complaint alleged that these entities, which we
will refer to collectively as Mercedes, conspired with their
authorized dealers "to fix, raise and maintain rates charged for
non-warranty auto repairs performed on Mercedes-Benz automobiles by .
. . basing the rates on the parts' prices and labor times set forth"
in a manual known as the MBNA Labor Time Guide, thereby violating  1
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.  1, App. at 34-35. The
complaint named authorized Mercedes dealers as co-conspirators..."

===============

Does that seem on target to you?

If so, I'd be glad to post the details of the case as an answer to your question.  

But if it's not what you need, please let us know in a bit more detail
how we can best assist you.

Thanks.

pafalafa-ga

Clarification of Question by michaelmoloney-ga on 05 Feb 2004 20:48 PST
I may not have made it clear that it was an Australian case -
unfortunately North American precedents aren't relevant to Australian
law. Does this help you answer? Thanks

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 06 Feb 2004 07:19 PST
AUSTRALIA!?!?!?

Well...that explains a lot!.  I *did* assume you were asking for a
U.S. case. Mea culpa.  I should have asked for more explicit
clarification (and lesson learned...I will certainly be more careful
in the future to do so).

Anyway, I have two possible cases from the Federal Court of Australia,
both presided over by Judge Wilcox, but neither involving any entity
with a "raceway" in its title:

-----

The first case involves painting and repairs to a "classic car":

"This case is concerned with the restoration of a 1966-1967 Mercedes Benz 300
SE coupe motor car, a vehicle which the parties agree may properly be
described as a "classic car".  A classic car is one which, because of its
quality and rarity, is of interest to connoisseurs of motor cars and which has
a tendency to appreciate, rather than depreciate, in value with the passage of
time."

The case was found in favor of the car owner:

"Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the respondent for
damages assessed at Twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000.00)...The
contract between the applicant and the respondent in respect of the
performance by the respondent on behalf of the applicant of work
involving the restoration and repair of the applicant's motor vehicle,
being a 1966-1967 Mercedes Benz 300SE coupe motor car, be varied so as
to release the applicant from liability for the payment of any further
moneys in respect of such work."

==========

The second case, also found in favor of the car owner, also involved
painting and repairs:

"The representation, counsel argues was that the repairs contemplated by the
consignment would be at no cost to the applicant whereas, in the event, the
respondent demanded money from the applicant in relation to those repairs as a
condition to re-delivering the vehicle to the applicant."

==========

Let me know if you would like me to post full details of these cases
as an answer to your question.

If not, please let me know what additional information you would like
to have to make for a satisfactory answer.

Thanks...and best of luck.

pafalafa-ga

Clarification of Question by michaelmoloney-ga on 09 Feb 2004 13:32 PST
Well thanks! Not sure if either case is the case I was after but
please post them as your answer. Please attached the full case (if you
can) to the answer.

Again many thanks
Answer  
Subject: Re: case law
Answered By: pafalafa-ga on 09 Feb 2004 14:42 PST
Rated:4 out of 5 stars
 
Hello again Michael, and thanks for the clarification you provided.  

A group called the Australasian Legal Information Institute (part of a
network of similar institutes around the world) makes available case
law from Australia over the internet.  You can visit their site at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/

and you can access their search engine directly at:


http://www.austlii.edu.au/forms/search1.html

I conducted numerous searches of Australian federal case law using the
terms you mentioned in various combinations:  Wilcox, Bentley,
repairs, overcharge, car, automobile, automotive, and so on.

The cases I am listing below are the two best matches that I found,
but you may want to do some searches of your own, especially if you
learn any additional information about the case in question.  I
haven't reproduced the cases here in full.  Instead, I've copied the
first few paragraphs for informational purposes, and provided a link
you can click on (or copy into the address bar of your web browser)
and go directly to the case itself.

I hope this material fully meets your needs.  But if you find you
would like additional explanation or additional information, just let
me know by posting a Request for Clarification, and I'll be happy to
assist your further.

Best of luck.

pafalafa-ga



http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal%5fct/unrep1844.html?query=%7e+restoration+of+a+1966+1967+mercedes+benz


Federal Court of Australia

Re: RONALD ADAMS And: CLASSIC AUTOCRAFT (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED NSW
G.197 of 1984 Trade Practices

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Wilcox J
HRNG
SYDNEY
#DATE 15:8:1985
ORDER
1.  Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant against the
respondent for damages assessed at Twenty-two thousand dollars
($22,000.00).

2.  The contract between the applicant and the respondent in respect of the
performance by the respondent on behalf of the applicant of work
involving the restoration and repair of the applicant's motor vehicle,
being a 1966-1967 Mercedes Benz 300SE coupe motor car, be varied so as
to release the applicant from liability for the payment of any further
moneys in respect of such work.

3.  The respondent return to the applicant upon demand being made, and
delivery taken, by the applicant the said motor vehicle and each and every
usable part thereof, whether original or whether purchased by the respondent
on behalf of the applicant for use in such vehicle.

4.  The cross-claim be dismissed.

5.  The respondent pay to the applicant his costs of the proceedings. 

AND THE COURT DIRECTS


6.  That the exhibits be handed out at the expiration of 21 days
unless in the meantime a Notice of Appeal shall have been filed.


JUDGE1
  This case is concerned with the restoration of a 1966-1967 Mercedes
Benz 300SE coupe motor car, a vehicle which the parties agree may
properly be
described as a "classic car".  A classic car is one which, because of its
quality and rarity, is of interest to connoisseurs of motor cars and
which has a tendency to appreciate, rather than depreciate, in value
with the passage of time.  Mr Adams purchased the car from a gentleman
resident in Adelaide, who was the brother-in-law of Mr David Lee, a
friend of Mr Adams. Mr Lee had himself previously owned the car and he
had continued to take an interest in it.  The consideration for the
purchase was the payment of $500 in cash together with the delivery by
Mr Adams to the vendor of a 1963 model 3.8 Jaguar. It is not clear
whether the money value of the Jaguar was at the time discussed
between the parties to the exchange but it is accepted by both parties
to this litigation that the total value of the consideration given was
about $7,000.  This may be taken as the purchase price....

==========

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal%5fct/unrep1603.html?query=%22counsel+argues+was+that+the+repairs+contemplated%22

Federal Court of Australia 

Re: LINDA MARTIN And: HORSELESS CARRIAGES PTY LIMITED No. G.8 of 1984
Consumer Protection
COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Wilcox J.
HRNG
SYDNEY
#DATE 28:9:1984
ORDER
  Judgement for the applicant in the sum of Ten thousand two hundred and fifty
dollars ($10,250.00).

  Order that the respondent pay to the applicant her costs of the proceedings.

  Direct that the exhibits be returned if no appeal is filed within 21 days of
this date.
JUDGE1
  This case, which arises under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the law of
contract, concerns the consignment for sale of a motor car, rare in Australia:
a 1979 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray. The applicant, Linda Martin, is an
American who married a member of the Australian Navy and came to live in
Australia in May 1982. She brought with her the vehicle and had it converted
to right hand drive and registered in Australia.

  In January 1983 Mrs Martin decided to sell the car. Her husband, Michael
Martin, was about to leave for overseas naval duty and she proposed to visit
her parents in America during his absence. Mr Michael Martin called into  the
premises of the respondent, a company which operated a used car sales yard in
Parramatta Road, Concord, which yard specialised in unusual and expensive
motor cars, particularly sports cars. Mr Martin showed a photograph of the car
to Mr David Gray, the Sales Manager, and to Mr Ronald Hunter, Managing
Director of the respondent. The two men asked Mr Martin to bring in the
vehicle. At that time the car was coloured blue, the paintwork being slightly
faded and with a few small marks, especially on the nose. Mechanically, it was
in good condition. It was registered until 16 July, 1983...

==========

Again, if you need any additional information, just let me know, and
I'm at your service.
michaelmoloney-ga rated this answer:4 out of 5 stars

Comments  
There are no comments at this time.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy