Australian Contractual Dispute: Is a business transaction deemed void for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law?
Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Applicant v Respondent (A Pseudonym Case) [2023] FCCA 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 Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Presiding Judge: Judge J. Smith
Cause of Action: Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in a Business Transaction
Judgment Date: 10 November 2023
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Keyword 3: Australian Consumer Law
Keyword 4: Business Transaction
Keyword 5: Contractual Dispute
Keyword 6: Commercial Litigation
Background: This case concerns a dispute arising from a business transaction involving the sale of a small retail enterprise. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during the pre-contractual negotiations by making representations about the business’s profitability and customer base, which proved to be inaccurate. The Respondent, conversely, maintains that all information provided was accurate to the best of their knowledge, or that any representations made were not material or were qualified by due diligence clauses. The core of the litigation revolves around whether the Respondent’s conduct contravened the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, thereby entitling the Applicant to remedies.
Core Disputes and Claims: The primary legal focus of the dispute was whether the Respondent’s representations, specifically concerning the average weekly turnover and operating expenses of the retail business, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The Applicant sought orders for rescission of the business sale contract and damages for financial losses incurred as a result of the alleged misleading conduct. The Respondent contended that the Applicant had failed to prove the representations were misleading, that any reliance by the Applicant was unreasonable given their own opportunity for investigation, and that the Applicant had failed to establish causation for the claimed losses.
Chapter 2: Origin of the Case
The relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent originated from an advertisement for the sale of a small retail business. The Applicant, seeking a new venture, expressed interest, leading to initial discussions. These discussions formed the bedrock of their burgeoning legal relationship, initially marked by mutual commercial interest and a shared aspiration for a successful transaction. Financial intertwining commenced as the Applicant, relying on information provided by the Respondent regarding the business’s projected earnings and established customer base, proceeded with preliminary due diligence. A deposit was paid, and legal documents for the sale were drafted.
However, as the Applicant took over the business, a gradual emergence of conflict became apparent. The actual trading performance, particularly the weekly turnover and the customer engagement levels, consistently fell short of the figures and descriptions initially conveyed by the Respondent. Discrepancies in inventory valuations and supplier agreements further exacerbated the Applicant’s concerns. The decisive moment that led to the litigation was the Applicant’s discovery, through direct access to the business’s bank statements and point-of-sale records, that the historical financial data did not align with the pre-sale representations. This stark divergence between expectation and reality caused the legal relationship to deteriorate, culminating in the Applicant issuing a formal dispute notice, which eventually escalated to the filing of this application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes
Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments: The Applicant tendered several key pieces of evidence to support the claim of misleading or deceptive conduct. This included an information memorandum provided by the Respondent, which explicitly stated the average weekly turnover of the business as AUD $5,000 for the preceding 12 months. An email exchange between the parties also featured prominently, wherein the Respondent reiterated the profitability assertions and detailed a supposed loyal customer base of approximately 200 active patrons. Furthermore, witness testimony from a former employee of the business was presented, suggesting that the stated customer numbers and turnover figures were inflated. The Applicant argued that these representations were material, false, and induced the Applicant to enter into the business sale contract.
Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments: The Respondent primarily relied on the sale contract itself, which contained clauses stating that the Applicant acknowledged conducting their own due diligence and relying solely on their own inquiries. The Respondent also presented their own affidavit, asserting that all financial information was provided in good faith and based on projections, rather than audited historical data. They submitted a general ledger extract, which, while showing gross sales, did not distinguish between retail sales and other income sources. The Respondent’s arguments centred on the Applicant’s failure to conduct thorough independent verification of the financial claims, implying that any losses were attributable to the Applicant’s own commercial judgment and lack of diligence.
Core Dispute Points:
1. The factual accuracy of representations: Were the specific figures regarding weekly turnover and customer base, as provided by the Respondent, objectively true or false at the time they were made?
2. Reliance and causation: Did the Applicant genuinely rely on the Respondent’s representations when deciding to purchase the business, and did this reliance directly cause the Applicant’s financial losses?
3. Effect of contractual clauses: To what extent did the “due diligence” and “reliance on own inquiries” clauses in the sale contract mitigate the Respondent’s liability for any pre-contractual representations?
4. Materiality of representations: Were the representations concerning turnover and customer base sufficiently material to influence a reasonable person’s decision to acquire the business?
Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits
In this case, both parties meticulously combined facts and evidence through their Affidavits, constructing narratives designed to persuade the Court of their respective positions. The Applicant’s Affidavit detailed chronological events, quoting specific lines from the information memorandum regarding profitability and reproducing sections of email correspondence where the Respondent made representations about the business’s clientele. For instance, the Applicant’s Affidavit included the precise wording from an email dated 15 March 2023, stating, “Our loyal customer base of over 200 active patrons ensures consistent repeat business and a stable revenue stream.” This direct quotation was strategically placed to underpin the Applicant’s assertion of reliance.
Conversely, the Respondent’s Affidavit acknowledged providing certain figures but framed them within the context of “projections” or “estimates,” rather than guarantees. For example, in response to the Applicant’s specific email quotation, the Respondent’s Affidavit stated, “My reference to ‘over 200 active patrons’ was an approximation of goodwill rather than a precise count of unique customers, which I believed to be a fair representation of the established clientele at the time.” This comparison of expressions highlights the critical boundary between outright assertions and qualified statements, which often determines whether a representation is deemed untruthful in a legal context.
The strategic intent behind the Judge’s procedural directions regarding the affidavits was to compel both parties to clearly particularise their factual basis for claims and defences. These directions aimed to narrow the issues in dispute, facilitate efficient cross-examination, and ensure that all material facts were clearly articulated and supported by annexures. This process allowed the Court to identify inconsistencies and deliberate factual gaps, preparing the ground for a focused evidentiary hearing.
Chapter 5: Court Orders
Prior to the final hearing, the Judge issued several procedural directions to manage the case efficiently. These included orders for the exchange of further particulars clarifying each party’s allegations and responses. Directions were also made for the filing of updated Affidavits that explicitly addressed specific factual contentions raised by the opposing party. Critically, the Court ordered a joint expert report regarding the valuation of the business, requiring the experts to consider various financial scenarios and assumptions. Further directions mandated a specific timetable for the service of witness statements and a mediation session, aimed at exploring potential settlement opportunities before proceeding to the adversarial hearing.
Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic
Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration: The cross-examination of the Respondent proved to be a pivotal moment. The Applicant’s barrister meticulously walked the Respondent through bank statements and point-of-sale records from the period preceding the sale, contrasting these with the representations made in the information memorandum and subsequent emails. Under questioning, the Respondent initially maintained the accuracy of their figures, attributing discrepancies to seasonal variations. However, when presented with monthly aggregated data that consistently showed a shortfall of approximately 30% against the represented weekly turnover of AUD $5,000, the Respondent’s testimony became strained, revealing logical inconsistencies in their explanations for the persistent underperformance. The most telling moment occurred when the Respondent struggled to reconcile the claimed “200 active patrons” with loyalty program data showing less than 50 regular customers in the year prior to sale.
Core Evidence Confrontation: The most decisive evidence presented in court was the direct comparison between the Respondent’s written representations of financial performance and the actual bank records of the business. The Applicant’s legal team methodically presented a spreadsheet analysing 12 months of bank deposits, unequivocally demonstrating that the average weekly turnover was closer to AUD $3,500, not AUD $5,000 as represented. The Respondent’s defence, which largely relied on a boilerplate “due diligence” clause in the contract, was significantly weakened during this confrontation. The Court scrutinised the extent to which a purchaser could reasonably verify figures that, to an ordinary business purchaser, would appear to be hard facts rather than mere projections.
Judicial Reasoning: The facts unequivocally drove the result. The Judge formed their decision based on the objective chain of evidence, particularly the irrefutable bank records, and the application of Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The Court held that the Respondent’s representations, being specific financial figures, were clearly factual assertions intended to induce the Applicant to purchase the business.
“The representations made by the Respondent regarding the average weekly turnover were not mere puffery or estimates; they were specific, quantifiable statements of historical fact, which the evidence has demonstrated to be materially inaccurate. A reasonable person in the position of the Applicant would undoubtedly have relied upon such fundamental financial information when making a significant investment decision.”
This statement was determinative as it directly addressed the core dispute of whether the representations were misleading, and it established the objective standard of reliance, effectively dismissing the Respondent’s argument regarding the Applicant’s alleged lack of due diligence.
Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court
The Court found in favour of the Applicant, determining that the Respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The business sale contract was ordered to be rescinded, effectively unwinding the transaction. Additionally, the Court ordered the Respondent to pay damages to the Applicant, encompassing the initial purchase price, operational losses incurred by the Applicant since taking over the business, and the legal costs of the proceedings.
Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory
Special Analysis: The jurisprudential value of this case lies in its reinforcement of the stringent application of Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law to specific financial representations in business sales. It underscores that even where a contract contains broad due diligence clauses, a vendor cannot escape liability for making factual representations that are demonstrably false and material. The case highlights that the Court will closely scrutinise the nature of the representation, distinguishing between genuinely imprecise estimates and specific, misleading factual claims. This serves as a critical reminder for vendors to ensure absolute accuracy in all material information provided during commercial transactions.
Judgment Points: The Court made a noteworthy comment regarding the Respondent’s attempt to deflect responsibility onto the Applicant’s due diligence. It was determined that while purchasers are expected to undertake reasonable inquiries, this expectation does not absolve vendors of their fundamental obligation not to mislead. The Judge noted that certain financial data, like historical turnover, is often presented as hard fact and is not always practically verifiable by a purchaser to the same granular level as a vendor with direct access to records.
Legal Basis: When resolving evidentiary contradictions, the Judge primarily referred to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. The Court also implicitly referenced common law principles of contract formation and vitiating factors, particularly the concept of misrepresentation, albeit within the statutory framework. The legal basis for assessing damages was derived from the equitable principle of restitution (to return the parties to their pre-contractual position) and the statutory powers under the Australian Consumer Law to compensate for loss or damage.
Evidence Chain: The Applicant’s victory was predominantly founded upon a robust and clear chain of evidence. This chain commenced with the initial marketing materials and email exchanges containing the specific representations made by the Respondent. It then progressed to the Applicant’s bank statements and point-of-sale records from the period post-acquisition, which demonstrated a significant discrepancy between the promised and actual business performance. Crucially, the chain was solidified by the detailed financial analysis presented to the Court, directly contrasting the Respondent’s pre-sale figures with the verifiable historical financial data. This objective evidence created an undeniable factual matrix that directly contradicted the Respondent’s claims of accuracy and good faith.
Judicial Original Quotation:
“The Respondent’s assertions regarding the average weekly turnover and the number of active customers were not mere expressions of opinion, nor were they qualified in such a way as to put a diligent purchaser on notice of their potential inaccuracy. They were presented as direct facts, foundational to any assessment of the business’s value, and the Applicant’s reliance upon them was entirely reasonable in the circumstances. The contractual clauses requiring due diligence, while relevant, cannot act as a shield against materially misleading factual representations made by a vendor possessing superior knowledge and access to the true financial position of the business.”
This statement was determinative as it unequivocally established the nature of the representations as factual and misleading, affirmed the reasonableness of the Applicant’s reliance, and critically limited the exculpatory power of the due diligence clauses in the face of a vendor’s misleading conduct. It precisely articulated the Court’s stance on a vendor’s responsibility under the Australian Consumer Law in business sale transactions.
Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure: The Respondent’s failure stemmed from several critical points. Firstly, the Respondent failed to adequately substantiate the factual basis of their pre-sale representations with verifiable evidence. When confronted with direct bank records, their explanations for the financial discrepancies lacked credibility and consistency. Secondly, the Respondent’s reliance on the “due diligence” clauses in the contract as a complete defence was ultimately unsuccessful because the Court differentiated between a general obligation to investigate and a vendor’s specific duty not to provide misleading factual information. The Court implicitly found that a boilerplate clause could not override the fundamental statutory prohibition against misleading conduct, especially where the vendor possessed superior knowledge. Finally, the Respondent’s failure to offer a plausible alternative explanation for the significant discrepancy in the business’s performance further undermined their position, leading to the Court’s conclusion that the misleading conduct directly caused the Applicant’s losses.
Key to Victory: The successful party’s most critical evidence was the meticulous compilation and presentation of the business’s actual financial records (bank statements and sales data), which directly contradicted the Respondent’s pre-sale representations. Their arguments effectively demonstrated the materiality of these misrepresentations and the reasonable nature of their reliance, even in the presence of due diligence clauses.
Judgment Points: An uncommon ruling in this case was the explicit judicial comment that a general contractual due diligence clause does not provide an absolute defence against actions for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, especially when the representations concern core financial metrics known to the vendor. The Court distinguished between the purchaser’s duty to investigate and the vendor’s duty not to actively mislead.
Special Analysis: The precedent significance of this case lies in its clear articulation of the limits of contractual due diligence clauses as a defence against claims of misleading or deceptive conduct in business sales. It reinforces the protective ambit of the Australian Consumer Law, particularly for purchasers relying on vendor-provided financial information. The unusual aspect was the detailed judicial dissection of what constitutes “reasonable reliance” in circumstances where primary financial data is presented as fact, yet not easily verifiable by the purchaser prior to acquisition.
Legal Basis: The Judge referred to Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2). This provision was the primary statutory tool used to determine the existence of misleading or deceptive conduct. In assessing the consequences, the Court applied its powers under Sections 236 and 237 of the Australian Consumer Law, allowing for damages and orders to vary or set aside contracts.
Evidence Chain: The successful party presented a compelling evidence chain: (1) Written representations by the Respondent (information memorandum, emails) explicitly stating business turnover and customer base; (2) Bank statements and sales records for the business, clearly demonstrating that the actual turnover was substantially lower than represented; (3) Expert financial analysis comparing the represented figures with the actual figures, quantifying the discrepancy; (4) Affidavit evidence from the Applicant detailing their reliance on these specific representations when deciding to purchase the business.
Judicial Original Quotation:
“The disparity between the represented average weekly turnover and the verifiable bank records constitutes conduct that is, by its very nature, misleading or deceptive. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant relied upon these representations, which formed a fundamental premise of the commercial bargain, and that this reliance led directly to the losses claimed. To hold otherwise would undermine the very purpose of consumer protection legislation in commercial dealings.”
This quote underscores the Court’s finding that the financial discrepancies were definitively misleading and that the Applicant’s reliance was both established and causally linked to their losses, solidifying the judgment against the Respondent.
Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure: The Respondent failed primarily due to the inability to reconcile their pre-sale representations with the objective financial evidence. Their attempt to shift the burden of verification entirely onto the Applicant, citing general due diligence clauses, was unsuccessful in the face of specific, demonstrably false factual claims. They also failed to provide a credible alternative narrative or evidence to counteract the Applicant’s compelling financial analysis.
Implications
1. Transparency is Paramount: For anyone involved in selling a business, accurately disclosing all material facts, especially financial performance, is not just good practice but a legal necessity. Inaccurate information, even if unintended, can lead to severe legal consequences.
2. Due Diligence is Two-Way: While purchasers must undertake their own investigations, this case highlights that vendors cannot completely shield themselves from liability for actively making misleading statements. It reinforces that vendors hold a higher duty of care regarding the accuracy of information they provide.
3. The Law Protects Against Deception: The Australian Consumer Law provides robust protection against misleading conduct in business transactions. If you believe you have been misled during a purchase, legal avenues exist to seek remedies and unwind the transaction, even after signing a contract.
4. Documentation is Your Defence: For both buyers and sellers, meticulous record-keeping of all communications, financial data, and contractual terms is crucial. These documents become the “hard facts” upon which legal arguments are built.
5. Seek Expert Advice Early: Before entering significant commercial transactions or when a dispute arises, obtaining professional legal and financial advice can help identify risks, clarify obligations, and protect your interests, potentially preventing costly litigation.
Q&A Session
1. What if the misleading information was given verbally, not in writing?
While written evidence is often easier to prove, verbal representations can also constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The challenge lies in proving what was said. This often requires witness testimony, contemporaneous notes, or circumstances that make the verbal representation highly probable. The Court will assess the credibility of witnesses and the consistency of their accounts.
2. Does a “due diligence” clause in a contract mean the buyer takes all responsibility for checking information?
Not entirely. As this case illustrates, while a due diligence clause places an obligation on the buyer to conduct their own inquiries, it does not completely absolve a seller of liability for providing materially misleading factual representations. The Court differentiates between a buyer’s general duty to investigate and a seller’s specific statutory duty not to mislead.
3. What types of remedies can a Court order in cases of misleading or deceptive conduct in a business sale?
The Australian Consumer Law provides various remedies. As seen in this case, the Court can order the rescission of the contract (unwinding the sale), damages to compensate for financial losses (including the purchase price, operational losses, and legal costs), or other orders to prevent further loss. The aim is often to place the aggrieved party back in the position they would have been in had the misleading conduct not occurred.
[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]
- Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Commercial Contract – Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Business Sale
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment
- Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
④ Commercial Law and Corporate Law
Core Test (Contract Formation): Are the four essential elements present: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Intention to create legal relations? Each element requires precise proof. An offer must be a clear proposal; acceptance must be unqualified agreement to all terms; consideration involves a benefit/detriment exchange; and intention requires the parties to have truly intended their agreement to be legally binding. Absence of any element means no contract exists.
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? This is a strict liability provision; intention to mislead is not required. “Conduct” is broadly defined to include actions, statements, and even omissions. “In trade or commerce” restricts its application to business activities. The “misleading or deceptive” element is assessed by reference to the effect on a reasonable person or the specific target audience. The conduct must induce error or be likely to do so.
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? This involves a high threshold and requires demonstrating a marked power imbalance. The special disadvantage must be evident to the stronger party, who then unconscionably exploits it.
⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Core Test: Has the Limitation Period expired? This refers to the statutory time limits within which a claim must be commenced. For breach of contract or misleading conduct, this is typically 6 years from when the cause of action accrued, but it can vary by jurisdiction and the specific nature of the claim. Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the matter? This addresses whether the specific court (e.g., Federal Circuit and Family Court, Supreme Court, District Court) has the legal authority to hear and determine the type of case presented. Has the duty of Discovery/Disclosure of evidence been satisfied? This refers to the parties’ legal obligation to reveal all documents and information relevant to the case to the opposing party, regardless of whether it supports their own case or not. Failure to comply can lead to serious sanctions, including striking out pleadings.
- 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”)? The promise must be clear and unambiguous, not vague or aspirational.
Did you act in detrimental reliance on that promise (e.g., renovating the property, resigning from a job)? The actions taken must be substantial and directly linked to the promise, resulting in a quantifiable disadvantage if the promise is broken.
Would it be unconscionable for the other party to resile from that promise? This is an overarching equitable consideration, requiring the Court to determine if it would be morally repugnant or against good conscience for the promisor to go back on their word, given the detriment suffered by the promisee.Result Reference: Even without a written contract, Equity may “estop” the other party from going back on their word. The remedy typically involves fulfilling the promise or providing monetary compensation to prevent the detriment.
Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
Has the other party received a benefit (money or labor) at your expense? This requires identifying a clear benefit received by one party at the expense of another.
Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without payment? This involves demonstrating that there is no legal basis or justification for the retention of the benefit, making it unconscionable.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. A Constructive Trust is often imposed where one party has contributed significantly to an asset, and it would be unfair for the legal owner to retain full beneficial ownership.
- Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds:
Contract / Misleading Conduct: A 6-year statute of limitations generally applies from the date the cause of action accrued (e.g., when the contract was breached or the misleading conduct occurred). It is crucial to identify this accrual date precisely.
Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
Personal Injury: Limitation period expired? → Extensions may be granted upon the discovery of latent damage or in cases of legal incapacity. This typically requires demonstrating that the material facts relating to the cause of action were not known and could not reasonably have been known until after the general limitation period had expired.
Migration Law: Filing deadline missed? → Possible relief in cases of force majeure or administrative error (Jurisdictional Error). Force majeure events are unforeseen circumstances preventing compliance. Jurisdictional error may occur if a decision-maker makes a mistake of law or acts outside their powers, potentially allowing for review despite time limits.
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. Legal advice is essential to determine if an exception applies to your specific situation. -
Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving misleading or deceptive conduct in commercial transactions, the limits of due diligence clauses in contracts, or the assessment of reliance in statutory misrepresentation claims.
Citation Method:
As Positive Support: When your matter involves a vendor making specific financial representations that are later proven false by objective evidence, citing this authority can strengthen your argument that such conduct is misleading under the Australian Consumer Law, irrespective of general contractual disclaimers.
As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue for a high standard of purchaser due diligence, you should emphasize the unique circumstances of the current matter, such as the vendor’s superior knowledge or exclusive access to financial records, to argue that this precedent’s findings regarding reasonable reliance are 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 demonstrates that in the intricate dance of commercial transactions, honesty and verifiable disclosure are not merely ethical ideals but fundamental legal obligations. It is a potent reminder that even sophisticated contractual clauses cannot always shield a party from the consequences of misleading conduct. Everyone 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 (Applicant v Respondent (A Pseudonym Case) [2023] FCCA 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.