Zahra v Hockley [2025] NSWDC 69

24 Mar Zahra v Hockley [2025] NSWDC 69

Sale of replica GT Falcon found to breach of term of contract and implied term as sale by description.

In the above case the Defendant advertised for sale on FB Marketplace a “Ford Falcon XY GT”. The compliance plate matched the VIN and belonged to a genuine XY GT. The Plaintiff inspected the vehicle with a friend and then purchased it for $195,000.

Subsequently the plaintiff discovered the vehicle was in fact a Falcon 500 which had had the XY GT numbers over stamped. A replica GT XY was only worth about half of what he had paid for it.

The Plaintiff was successful in recovering the difference between the purchase price and the actual value – found to be $110,000. He could keep the replica.

The Court distinguished Walker v Sell, finding that that case turned on its facts – in particular the fact that the Plaintiff in that case had had 12 months to organize an independent inspection but chose not to rendered the sale not a sale by description.

The Court found that by advertising the vehicle as an Ford Falcon XT GT the Plaintiff was representing it was an original Ford XY GT and that it was a term of the contract that it was such a vehicle and not a replica. In doing so the Court found that “a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would, on the representations made by the defendant, have concluded that the defendant was contractually bound to the supply of a genuine Ford XY GT as reflected by the compliance plate” applying the High Court in Toll(FCGT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd 219 CLR165 and Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603.

The terms of a contract are to be objectively ascertained in the context of the contract – what a reasonable person would, in that context have understood the term to mean. In the context of the sale in Zahra the term Ford XY GT meant a genuine (ie original) GT not a replica.

The Court also found th sale was a sale by description unlike in Walker v Sll and the reason being that an inspection of the goods does not render s18 Of the SGA inapplicable if the inspection could not reasonably be expected to disclose the non compliance with the inspection. That was not the case where the vehicle was a replica – disguised to look like something it was not.

The case is another example of a plaintiff successfully recovering compensation for the purchase of a replica or rebodied GT which has been disguised to look like a collectible vehicle when it is not original – see also Cassar v Pegoraro [2011] VCC 819 and Sammut v De Rome [2011] QDC 294.