RONDOVA V WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1486

RONDOVA V WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1486

Appeal allowed: purchaser was not induced by the misrepresentation about the fibrolite sheets and the misrepresentation did not substantially increase the purchaser's burden because the fibrolite was removed and the Council certified appropriate disposal; purchaser's cancellation was ineffective because no settlement notice making time of the essence was given; vendor validly cancelled for purchaser's failure to settle and is entitled to damages of $285,248 plus interest and costs.

Citation
openlaw-36f2cebf_4f00_4c2d_b1a7_913d4df4da7e.pdf
Parties
Vendor (appellant): VALENTJNA RONDOVA; Purchaser (respondent): WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Contractual Dispute (misrepresentation) Sale and Purchase of Land / High Court Appeal From District Court Judgment (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court judgment for respondent set aside; judgment for appellant for proven damages; costs to appellant
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Cancellation of Contract, Contractual Remedies Act 1979 S7, Agency and Undisclosed Principal/representee, Damages, Time of the Essence/settlement Notice
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Cancellation of Contract Contractual Remedies Act 1979 S7 Agency and Undisclosed Principal/representee Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VALENTJNA RONDOVA

Vendor (appellant)

WHEN ROUTINE BITES HARD LIMITED

Purchaser (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Contractual Dispute (misrepresentation) Sale and Purchase of Land / High Court Appeal From District Court Judgment (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the vendor or her agent know the purchaser was aware of the representation?
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser was induced by the misrepresentation to enter the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the misrepresentation substantially increased the purchaser's burden under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed: purchaser was not induced by the misrepresentation about the fibrolite sheets and the misrepresentation did not substantially increase the purchaser's burden because the fibrolite was removed and the Council certified appropriate disposal; purchaser's cancellation was ineffective because no settlement notice making time of the essence was given; vendor validly cancelled for purchaser's failure to settle and is entitled to damages of $285,248 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court judgment for respondent set aside; judgment for appellant for proven damages; costs to appellant

Orders

  • District Court judgment for respondent set aside
  • Judgment for appellant in the sum of 285248.00 NZD plus interest at the Judicature Act rate from 2009-06-30 to date of judgment