The dispute concerns the quality of the seats installed by the defendant in the cinema
The Federal Court has ruled in favour of the defendant in a legal dispute over the quality of cinema seating.
In Star Kingdom Investments Pty Ltd v Camatic Pty Limited [2024] FCA 329, the court granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, a company operating cinemas, which had sought remedies for what it claimed were breaches of contract and statutory guarantees related to the seating installed by the defendant, a manufacturer of commercial venue seating.
The legal contention centred around two contracts for the supply and installation of cinema seating that were alleged to have been breached by the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the fabric on the seating, installed in two of its cinema locations, was not of acceptable quality, enumerating issues such as deterioration and discolouration within three years of installation. This was claimed to be a breach of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and relevant state legislation.
However, the defendant countered by highlighting that the warranties implied by law had been expressly excluded in the contracts, as per clauses allowing such exclusions under the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) and the Goods Act 1958 (Vic). Furthermore, the defendant posited that the plaintiff, by virtue of the contracts' value exceeding $100,000, did not qualify as a consumer under the ACL. The court noted that this classification was crucial, as it determined the applicability of statutory guarantees concerning the quality and fitness of the goods.
The court's analysis was influenced by evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits from the defendant's executive director and the plaintiff's general manager. The defendant emphasised that its products were specifically designed for commercial cinema use, typically in large quantities, which did not align with the characteristics of goods ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use.
In addressing the statutory framework of the ACL and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the court referenced precedent and legislative intent to support its decision. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated that the seating supplied fell within the scope of goods ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use, as required to meet the definition of a consumer under the ACL.
Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claims had no reasonable prospect of success, rendering the application for summary judgment in favour of the defendant appropriate. The court also ordered the plaintiff to cover the defendant's legal costs.
