CARTERS, a division of CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v DANIEL JOHN CANCIAN [2018] NZHC 1496

CARTERS, a division of CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v DANIEL JOHN CANCIAN [2018] NZHC 1496

Because there was clear contemporaneous documentary evidence of an approved $50,000 credit limit and material conflicts of evidence about whether the guarantor was induced to sign on that basis, the plaintiff did not satisfy the high onus required for summary judgment; an arguable defence of misrepresentation exists and the matter requires trial testing.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1496
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: CARTERS, a division of CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED; Respondent/defendant: DANIEL JOHN CANCIAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Debt Enforcement Arising From Guarantee and Indemnity / Summary Judgment Application (heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Personal Guarantee, Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (now Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017), Credit Limits, Inducement/promotional Payment
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Suretyship/guarantee Law Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Personal Guarantee Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (now Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CARTERS, a division of CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED

Applicant/plaintiff

DANIEL JOHN CANCIAN

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Debt Enforcement Arising From Guarantee and Indemnity / Summary Judgment Application (heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant has an arguable defence of misrepresentation inducing execution of guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the personal guarantee was limited to $50,000 by representation or document
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate given conflicts of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was clear contemporaneous documentary evidence of an approved $50,000 credit limit and material conflicts of evidence about whether the guarantor was induced to sign on that basis, the plaintiff did not satisfy the high onus required for summary judgment; an arguable defence of misrepresentation exists and the matter requires trial testing.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • Summary judgment application dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.