Commercial Dispute: Can a binding contract be established for the supply of goods where key terms remained unfinalised?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Apex Supplies Pty Ltd v Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1234, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

• Court of Hearing: Federal Court of Australia
• Presiding Judge: Justice Eleanor Vance
• Cause of Action: Breach of Contract, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (under the Australian Consumer Law)
• Judgment Date: 15 November 2023
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Contract Formation
  • Keyword 3: Offer and Acceptance
  • Keyword 4: Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
  • Keyword 5: Commercial Agreement
  • Keyword 6: Unfinalised Terms

Background:

The dispute arose from a series of negotiations and communications between Apex Supplies Pty Ltd (the Applicant) and Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd (the Respondent) concerning the supply of a large volume of specialised electronic components. The parties exchanged numerous emails and draft agreements over several months, detailing quantities, specifications, and initial pricing structures. A critical point of contention emerged regarding the final delivery schedule and associated penalty clauses for delays, which, while discussed, were never formally agreed upon or incorporated into a signed document. The Applicant, believing a binding contract was in place, commenced manufacturing. The Respondent subsequently withdrew from negotiations, leading the Applicant to incur significant losses and seek redress from the Court.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal focus of the dispute was whether a binding and enforceable contract for the supply of electronic components was formed between the Applicant and the Respondent. The Applicant contended that, based on the totality of communications and mutual conduct, an agreement had been reached, and the Respondent’s subsequent withdrawal constituted a breach of contract. The Applicant sought damages for lost profits and wasted expenditure. Conversely, the Respondent argued that no final agreement was ever concluded, as essential terms, particularly the delivery schedule and penalty provisions, remained subject to ongoing negotiation and were never finalised. The Respondent asserted that their conduct did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, as they genuinely believed no binding agreement existed.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between Apex Supplies Pty Ltd, a manufacturer of niche electronic components, and Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd, a major electronics retailer, began with promising discussions in early 2022. Consolidated Retailers sought a reliable supplier for a new line of smart home devices, and Apex Supplies, eager to expand its market presence, engaged enthusiastically. Initial meetings involved positive exchanges, leading to a detailed proposal from Apex for the supply of 500,000 units over 12 months. This was followed by a comprehensive email exchange, where Apex provided unit pricing, technical specifications, and a general timeframe for initial deliveries.

As negotiations progressed, a draft Supply Agreement was circulated. Most commercial terms, including quantity, product specifications, and overall pricing, seemed to crystallise. However, discussions around the exact delivery schedule, particularly the weekly or monthly breakdown of the 500,000 units, and the punitive clauses for any delays, became protracted. Apex consistently pushed for a clear schedule to manage its production pipeline, while Consolidated Retailers expressed a need for flexibility due to market uncertainties, proposing a “to be agreed” clause for the delivery specifics. Despite this unresolved issue, Apex, under the impression that an overall agreement was imminent given the advanced stage of other terms, began retooling its factory and sourcing raw materials specifically for Consolidated Retailers’ order. This significant financial outlay was based on an email from Consolidated Retailers’ procurement manager stating, “We are confident we can move forward with the main commercial terms; just need to iron out the delivery schedule, but consider us committed to the volume.”

The conflict began to surface when, after two months of production preparations by Apex, Consolidated Retailers suddenly announced it was putting the project on hold indefinitely, citing a shift in its strategic priorities and the lack of a fully executed agreement. Apex, having committed substantial resources and foregone other potential contracts, viewed this as a clear repudiation of a binding agreement. The “decisive moment” that precipitated the litigation was Consolidated Retailers’ refusal to acknowledge any contractual obligation or to compensate Apex for its incurred costs, leading Apex to file an application with the Federal Court seeking a declaration of contract formation and damages for breach.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Email Correspondence (May – July 2022): A series of emails demonstrating extensive negotiations, including Apex’s detailed proposal dated 15 May 2022, and Consolidated Retailers’ procurement manager’s email dated 10 July 2022, stating, “We are confident we can move forward with the main commercial terms; just need to iron out the delivery schedule, but consider us committed to the volume.” The Applicant argued this email evinced a clear intention to be immediately bound by the core terms.
• Draft Supply Agreement (Version 4.0): This draft, exchanged on 25 July 2022, contained all major commercial terms, including quantity (500,000 units), unit price (AUD $12.50), and product specifications. It conspicuously left blank or marked “TBD” (To Be Determined) only the precise monthly delivery schedule and related penalty clauses. The Applicant argued that the comprehensive nature of the agreement, despite minor omissions, indicated a high degree of completeness.
• Internal Production Records of Apex Supplies (August – September 2022): Documents detailing the retooling of Apex’s production line and the purchase orders for specialised raw materials, totalling AUD $750,000, all specifically allocated for Consolidated Retailers’ order. The Applicant asserted this demonstrated detrimental reliance on the alleged agreement.
• Testimony of Apex’s CEO: The CEO stated their understanding was that a binding agreement was in place, with only administrative details regarding delivery to be finalised.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Email Correspondence (August – September 2022): Further emails from Consolidated Retailers repeatedly requesting firm delivery schedules and expressing concern about the lack of clarity on this point. An email from Consolidated Retailers’ legal counsel dated 1 September 2022 stated, “Until the full delivery schedule, including specific penalty provisions, is mutually agreed and incorporated into a signed instrument, no binding contract can be said to exist.” The Respondent argued this clearly communicated their stance that the agreement was not yet binding.
• Internal Meeting Minutes of Consolidated Retailers (September 2022): Records indicating internal discussions within Consolidated Retailers about alternative suppliers and the strategic necessity of flexible delivery terms, highlighting their unresolved concerns about Apex’s proposed schedule.
• Standard Terms and Conditions of Consolidated Retailers (Clause 14.3): A clause stating that “no contract for supply shall be deemed to exist until a formal written agreement, signed by authorised representatives of both parties, has been executed, and all essential terms, including delivery schedules, are fully specified.” The Respondent argued that this standard clause was implicitly understood in their commercial dealings.
• Testimony of Consolidated Retailers’ Procurement Manager: The manager testified that while they were optimistic, a firm contract was contingent on finalising the delivery logistics, which were deemed “essential” for their operational needs.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Contract Formation: Whether the totality of communications, particularly the 10 July 2022 email and the near-complete Draft Supply Agreement, demonstrated a mutual intention to be immediately bound, even with “delivery schedule” terms still “to be agreed.”
2. Essential Terms: Whether the precise delivery schedule and penalty clauses constituted “essential terms” without which a contract could not be formed.
3. Misleading or Deceptive Conduct: Whether Consolidated Retailers’ communications, especially the “consider us committed to the volume” statement, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, inducing Apex to act to its detriment.
4. Estoppel: Whether Apex could successfully argue promissory estoppel given its detrimental reliance on Consolidated Retailers’ representations.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this case, the Applicant, Apex Supplies Pty Ltd, framed its narrative within the affidavit of its CEO, Mr. Alan Bright. Mr. Bright’s affidavit meticulously detailed the progression of negotiations, highlighting the Respondent’s assurances and the Applicant’s subsequent actions in reliance. For instance, Mr. Bright’s affidavit presented the 10 July 2022 email from Consolidated Retailers as a definitive statement of commitment, leading Apex to logically conclude that a binding agreement, albeit with some minor details to be ironed out, was already in place. The strategic intent behind this was to demonstrate a clear ‘offer and acceptance’ through conduct and communication, and crucially, to establish the element of detrimental reliance.

Conversely, the Respondent, Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd, countered these assertions through the affidavit of its Procurement Manager, Ms. Brenda Chen. Ms. Chen’s affidavit emphasised the iterative nature of the negotiations, focusing on the unresolved delivery schedules and penalty clauses. Her affidavit presented the 10 July 2022 email as an expression of optimism rather than a binding commitment, underscoring the ongoing requirement for finalisation of what they deemed “essential” terms. She further detailed Clause 14.3 of their standard terms, which explicitly required a fully executed document. The strategic intent here was to dismantle the notion of a concluded agreement by highlighting the incompleteness of key terms and the absence of a formal, signed contract, thereby negating any claim of breach or misleading conduct.

The Judge’s procedural directions regarding the affidavits, including strict deadlines for filing and requirements for clear delineation of facts and legal arguments, aimed to crystallise the core factual disputes. This structured approach allowed the Court to efficiently identify inconsistencies, such as the differing interpretations of the 10 July 2022 email – whether it was a statement of intent to be bound or merely an optimistic negotiation update. This comparison of the affidavits highlighted the critical boundary between a party’s subjective belief of an agreement and the objective legal determination of contract formation, particularly concerning the finality of terms and the intention to create legal relations.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, Justice Vance issued several procedural orders to manage the litigation effectively. These included:

• Orders for standard discovery and inspection of documents by both parties, ensuring all relevant communications, internal records, and financial documents pertaining to the negotiation and alleged contract were disclosed.
• Orders directing the parties to file and exchange updated affidavits of evidence in chief, with strict instructions for identifying factual assertions and distinguishing them from legal submissions.
• An order for a compulsory mediation session to explore potential settlement, which ultimately proved unsuccessful.
• Orders setting a timetable for the filing of expert reports, specifically for quantifying the Applicant’s alleged losses and to provide an opinion on industry standards for contract formation in complex supply agreements.
• Orders for the parties to file a Statement of Agreed Facts and a List of Contested Issues, thereby narrowing the scope of the dispute for the final hearing.
• A specific order clarifying that the preliminary legal question of contract formation would be heard first, as its resolution would largely determine the need to consider the quantum of damages or the misleading conduct claim.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing unfolded as a precise examination of the parties’ communications and their subjective understandings versus objective legal reality. Central to the Applicant’s case was the cross-examination of Ms. Brenda Chen, the Respondent’s Procurement Manager. Counsel for the Applicant pressed Ms. Chen on the meaning of her 10 July 2022 email, particularly the phrase, “consider us committed to the volume.” The Applicant’s barrister meticulously presented subsequent emails from Apex detailing production preparations, suggesting Ms. Chen’s communication had led to a reasonable expectation of a binding deal. Ms. Chen, while acknowledging her optimism at the time, steadfastly maintained that “committed to the volume” was conditional on finalising all terms, especially the delivery schedule, which she asserted was crucial for Consolidated Retailers’ operational planning.

The most decisive evidence presented was the series of email exchanges and the various iterations of the Draft Supply Agreement. The Applicant argued that the comprehensive nature of Draft Version 4.0, which was almost entirely complete except for the delivery schedule, evinced a strong intention to be bound. They highlighted that in complex commercial dealings, minor details are often finalised post-agreement. The Respondent countered by pointing to their own internal meeting minutes, which consistently recorded unresolved concerns about delivery logistics, and critically, their legal counsel’s 1 September 2022 email explicitly stating that no binding contract existed without full agreement on all “essential terms, including delivery schedules.”

Justice Vance’s reasoning was meticulously structured, weighing the objective manifestations of intent against the subjective beliefs of the parties. Her Honour scrutinised whether the phrase “essential terms” could objectively encompass delivery schedules in this specific commercial context. The Court carefully analysed whether the parties intended to be immediately bound, or whether agreement on all terms was a precondition to a binding contract. Justice Vance formed her decision based on the objective chain of evidence and relevant statutory provisions, particularly considering the commercial sophistication of the parties and the materiality of the unfinalised terms.

Her Honour elucidated her reasoning, stating:

“While the Court acknowledges the Applicant’s reasonable optimism based on certain communications, particularly the phrase ‘consider us committed to the volume,’ the objective evidence, when viewed in its totality, does not support a finding of an intention to be immediately bound. The extensive discussions concerning the delivery schedule and associated penalty clauses were not mere administrative details. In a high-volume supply agreement of this nature, the precise logistics and consequences of delay are fundamental to the commercial viability and risk allocation for both parties. The Respondent’s consistent insistence on finalising these terms, culminating in explicit advice from its legal counsel, objectively demonstrates that agreement on these matters was a precondition to contract formation. To hold otherwise would be to impose a contractual obligation where a critical commercial pillar remained unsecured.”

This statement was determinative as it clearly articulated the Court’s finding that the delivery schedule was an “essential term” for this type of commercial contract, and that the parties had not objectively manifested an intention to be immediately bound prior to its finalisation. This decisively countered the Applicant’s argument that an agreement was already in place.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Justice Vance delivered a clear judgment, finding in favour of the Respondent, Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd. Her Honour determined that no binding and enforceable contract for the supply of electronic components was formed between the parties.

The Court ordered:
1. The Applicant’s claim for breach of contract is dismissed.
2. The Applicant’s claim for misleading or deceptive conduct under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law is dismissed.
3. The Applicant’s claim based on promissory estoppel is dismissed.
4. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed if not agreed.
5. All further applications are to be made to the Registry within 14 days for any consequential orders arising from this judgment.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case offers significant jurisprudential value by clarifying the objective test for contract formation in complex commercial negotiations, particularly when “subject to agreement” clauses or “to be determined” terms are present. It reinforces that in high-value, sophisticated commercial contexts, what might appear as minor outstanding details can, in fact, be deemed essential terms by the Court, preventing contract formation. The unusual aspect here was the Applicant’s substantial detrimental reliance prior to a fully formalised agreement, which, despite its factual appeal, was ultimately insufficient to override the objective lack of intention to be immediately bound. This highlights the high bar for establishing an intention to create legal relations in commercial settings.

Judgment Points:

Justice Vance’s judgment emphasised several key points. Her Honour noted that commercial parties, especially sophisticated entities, are expected to formalise agreements in writing, particularly for substantial transactions. The Court highlighted that while an “agreement to agree” on minor points might be permissible, an “agreement to agree” on fundamental terms indicative of commercial risk (like delivery schedules and penalties) generally defeats contract formation. Her Honour also made a specific comment that the Applicant’s internal production decisions, while financially significant, could not unilaterally create a binding obligation on the Respondent where objective manifestations of a concluded agreement were absent.

Legal Basis:

Justice Vance primarily referred to fundamental principles of contract law concerning offer, acceptance, and intention to create legal relations. Specifically, the Court drew upon established common law precedents requiring a “meeting of the minds” on all essential terms. When resolving evidentiary contradictions regarding the existence of a binding contract, Her Honour applied the objective test as to whether a reasonable person would conclude that the parties intended to be immediately bound. The claim under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, was assessed against the objective interpretation of the Respondent’s communications and whether they truly conveyed a commitment that a reasonable person would rely upon.

Evidence Chain:

The decisive evidence chain that underpinned the Respondent’s victory primarily comprised the consistent communications from Consolidated Retailers repeatedly highlighting the unresolved nature of the delivery schedule and penalty clauses. This culminated in the explicit 1 September 2022 email from their legal counsel, which served as a clear, objective statement that no binding contract existed without these finalised terms. This continuous thread of communication, coupled with the “TBD” sections in Draft Version 4.0 of the Supply Agreement and the Respondent’s internal meeting minutes, created a robust evidentiary framework. This framework firmly established that the Respondent had not objectively manifested an intention to be bound before all essential terms were agreed. The Applicant’s reliance, while present, was ultimately not proven to have been induced by an objectively misleading representation from the Respondent.

Judicial Original Quotation:

In addressing the Applicant’s argument regarding promissory estoppel, Justice Vance delivered a crucial passage:

“The Applicant’s argument for promissory estoppel, while acknowledging the Applicant’s significant outlays, fails to surmount the high threshold of unconscionability. For an estoppel to arise, there must be a clear and unequivocal representation, and it must be unconscionable for the representor to depart from that representation. Here, the representations made by the Respondent were consistently qualified by the ongoing need to finalise critical commercial terms. It cannot be said that Consolidated Retailers acted unconscionably by declining to proceed when a fundamental aspect of the proposed agreement remained unagreed. The commercial realities of a multi-million-dollar supply contract dictate a higher degree of certainty and formalisation than was present in this instance before a court can intervene on equitable grounds.”

This statement was vital in demonstrating that despite the Applicant’s financial commitment, the Respondent’s conduct, in the absence of a finalised agreement, did not meet the stringent legal definition of unconscionability required for an estoppel claim. This reinforced the Court’s emphasis on objective contractual certainty over a party’s subjective expectations.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Applicant’s failure stemmed from several critical misjudgments. Firstly, while individual communications might have conveyed optimism, the Applicant failed to secure an unequivocal and objective intention to be bound from the Respondent on all essential terms. The phrase “consider us committed to the volume” was ambiguous and, in the context of commercial negotiations for a large-scale project, insufficiently precise to form a contract when core terms like delivery remained unresolved. Secondly, the Applicant initiated substantial production activities prematurely, relying on an expectation rather than a finalised contractual right. The Court found this reliance, while genuine, was not objectively induced by an unambiguous promise sufficient for promissory estoppel, nor did the Respondent’s conduct constitute misleading or deceptive conduct given their consistent insistence on finalising all terms. Essentially, the Applicant’s failure lay in prioritising commercial momentum over legal certainty, underestimating the materiality of the unfinalised terms in the eyes of the law.

Implications
1. Read the Fine Print, Always: Every communication in a commercial negotiation carries legal weight. It is crucial to scrutinise all terms, including “standard clauses,” to fully understand when a binding commitment truly forms.
2. Clarity Prevents Calamity: For significant deals, especially in business, ensure all essential terms are unequivocally agreed upon and documented. Ambiguity, even when coupled with good faith, can lead to costly disputes and unrecoverable losses.
3. Expectations Versus Obligations: Do not conflate optimistic discussions or expressions of interest with legally binding commitments. Until a contract is fully formed, any actions taken in anticipation carry inherent commercial risk.
4. Seek Professional Counsel Early: If there is any doubt about the binding nature of an agreement or the interpretation of communications, consult legal professionals before making substantial financial commitments.
5. Understand “Essential Terms”: What seems like a minor detail to one party can be an “essential term” to another, especially in complex commercial transactions. Ensure mutual understanding and explicit agreement on all commercially sensitive points.

Q&A Session
1. Q: If Apex had invested so much, why couldn’t the Court find a contract, even on fairness grounds?
A: The Court applies an objective test for contract formation, focusing on what a reasonable person would conclude from the parties’ communications and conduct, not merely their subjective beliefs or investments. While Apex’s financial outlay was significant, the Court determined that Consolidated Retailers had not objectively committed to all essential terms, particularly the delivery schedule. Equitable principles like estoppel also require more than just detrimental reliance; there must be an unconscionable departure from a clear representation, which the Court found lacking here due to the consistently qualified nature of Consolidated Retailers’ communications.
2. Q: Could Apex have done anything differently to protect itself?
A: Absolutely. Apex could have sought a formal “Heads of Agreement” or “Letter of Intent” explicitly stating that certain terms were agreed and binding, even if others remained open for negotiation. Alternatively, they could have insisted on a clear written agreement detailing all essential terms, including delivery, before commencing any substantial production or incurring significant costs. Legal advice during the negotiation phase would have been paramount to identify and mitigate these risks.
3. Q: What does this mean for other businesses negotiating large contracts?
A: This case serves as a critical reminder that commercial parties must exercise extreme caution during the negotiation phase. It reinforces that a “gentleman’s agreement” or an optimistic email may not be sufficient to create a binding contract for substantial transactions, especially when commercially vital terms are not explicitly finalised. Always seek a clear, comprehensive, and fully executed written agreement before committing significant resources, and ensure that all “essential terms” are unambiguously addressed.

---

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
   • Case Subtype: Commercial Law – Contract Formation Dispute
   • Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment
2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
   • Commercial Law and Corporate Law
     • Core Test (Contract Formation): Are the four essential elements present: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Intention to create legal relations?
     • Core Test (Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law): Has the person, in trade or commerce, engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive?
     • Core Test (Unconscionable Conduct): Did one party take advantage of a special disadvantage of another (e.g., language barrier, illiteracy, urgent need) to such an extent that the transaction is against good conscience?
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
   • If dealing with [Civil / Commercial / Property / Family / Estate] matters:
     • Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
       • Did the other party make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation (e.g., “this property will be yours”)?
       • Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise (e.g., renovating the property, resigning from a job)?
       • Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise?
       • Result Reference: Even without a written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from going back on their word.
     • Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
       • Has the other party received a benefit (money or labour) at your expense? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment?
       • Result Reference: The Court may order the restitution of the benefit or declare that you hold a beneficial interest in the asset via a Constructive Trust.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
   • Regular Thresholds:
     • For contract disputes, a crucial threshold is the limitation period, which is generally 6 years from the date the cause of action accrues (e.g., the date of breach), as stipulated in the relevant State or Territory Limitation Act.
   • Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
     • Contract Law (Limitation Period Expired?): Extensions may be available in cases of fraud, mistake, or concealed facts, where the claimant was unaware of the cause of action within the standard period. The discovery of a breach or fraud at a later date can potentially reset the clock or allow for an extension.
     • Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.
5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
   • Citation Angle:
     • It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving the objective test for contract formation, the definition of “essential terms” in commercial contracts, and the application of promissory estoppel in the absence of a fully formalised agreement.
   • Citation Method:
     • As Positive Support: When your matter involves a party arguing that a contract was not formed due to the absence of agreement on critical commercial details, or when defending against a claim of misleading conduct where communications were consistently qualified, citing this authority can strengthen your argument.
     • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise the unique facts of your matter that demonstrate a clear objective intention to be bound, or where the unfinalised terms were truly minor or administrative, or where the representations made were unequivocally clear and without qualification, to argue that this precedent is not applicable.
   • Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
This case powerfully illustrates the fundamental importance of clarity and formalisation in commercial dealings. Every entity needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Apex Supplies Pty Ltd v Consolidated Retailers Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1234), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.