Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW – enforcement and remedies – compensation orders – proceedings brought by Commissioner on behalf of consumers – consumers purchased moveable dwellings and entered into occupation agreements with respondents – appellants represented that terms of agreements preventing permanent residence would not be enforced – permanent residence precluded by development consent – no challenge to findings of misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct by corporate appellants – whether primary judge erred in making orders requiring payment of purchase price 85% of cost of improvements plus interest on terms that consumers reconvey title to moveable homes – whether need to quantify loss or damage before power to make orders under s 72 of Fair Trading Act or s 237 of Australian Consumer Law available – consideration of distinction between such orders and damages – consideration of relationship between such orders and orders for rescission in equity for fraudulent representation – whether primary judge erred in finding unconscionable conduct by director of corporate appellants – appeal dismissed
https://jade.io/viewArticle.html?aid=767132&pid=-1&h=1502666671
