Shah v Hagemrad [2018] FCA 91

CONSUMER LAW – whether first and second respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the sale by them of a franchise business to the first applicant – whether first applicant was induced to purchase business by misrepresentations with respect to sales made DAMAGES – whether first and second respondents’ conduct caused the first applicant loss – whether first applicant entitled to recover difference between the price paid for the business and its true value at the time of purchase – assessment of true value of business at time of purchase EVIDENCE – significance of rejection of first respondent’s evidence – what inferences may be drawn in circumstances where key aspects of first respondent’s evidence disbelieved – whether disbelief in the evidence that one state of affairs exists supports the existence of another state of affairs