Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 SEPTEMBER 2010

Parallel Negotiations Found to be Misleading and Deceptive

Undisclosed parallel dealings were found to be misleading and deceptive in a recent case involving protracted negotiations and two of Australia's retail giants, but the plaintiff's victory was pyrrhic as it lost a damages claim entirely, mostly through ill-considered use of the phrase 'deal breaker' at the negotiating table.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

Parallel negotiations found to be misleading and deceptive

Undisclosed parallel dealings were found to be misleading and deceptive in a recent case involving protracted negotiations and two of Australia's retail giants, but the plaintiff's victory was pyrrhic as it lost a damages claim entirely, mostly through ill-considered use of the phrase 'deal breaker' at the negotiating table.

The facts

In November 2007, the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council (Council), for a second time, publicly invited expressions of interest (EOI) in purchasing and developing a supermarket development site. Both Woolworths and Coles responded and the Council accepted a conditional offer from Woolworths.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from