JOHN AUSTIN LTD v CTRACK LTD [2014] NZHC 2687

JOHN AUSTIN LTD v CTRACK LTD [2014] NZHC 2687

Summary judgment was entered for Rent Plus because the Master Rental Agreement and Rental Schedules unambiguously excluded Rent Plus from giving any warranties or representations as to the equipment and software; Rent Plus was not involved in vendor representations or the manufacture/installation/maintenance, an implied warranty could not be read into contracts that expressly disclaimed such obligations, and on the facts it was fair and reasonable under s4(1) CRA for Rent Plus to rely on those exclusion clauses, so the claims against it could not succeed.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2687
Parties
Plaintiff: John Austin Limited; First Defendant: CTrack Limited; Second Defendant: Rent Plus Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for second defendant Rent Plus Limited against plaintiff John Austin Limited
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Exclusion Clauses, Implied Terms, Tripartite Contractual Arrangements, Representations During Negotiations, S4 Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Warranties
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Summary Judgment Strike Out Exclusion Clauses Implied Terms +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Austin Limited

Plaintiff

CTrack Limited

First Defendant

Rent Plus Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant Rent Plus Ltd was liable for defective tracking equipment supplied and represented by Minorplanet/CTrack
  2. 2 Whether Rent Plus was bound by warranties or representations made by the vendor (Minorplanet/CTrack) to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the Master Rental Agreement and Rental Schedules excluded Rent Plus's liability and whether that exclusion is effective under s4(1) Contractual Remedies Act 1979

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was entered for Rent Plus because the Master Rental Agreement and Rental Schedules unambiguously excluded Rent Plus from giving any warranties or representations as to the equipment and software; Rent Plus was not involved in vendor representations or the manufacture/installation/maintenance, an implied warranty could not be read into contracts that expressly disclaimed such obligations, and on the facts it was fair and reasonable under s4(1) CRA for Rent Plus to rely on those exclusion clauses, so the claims against it could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for second defendant Rent Plus Limited against plaintiff John Austin Limited

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Rent Plus Limited against John Austin Limited
  • Claims against Rent Plus dismissed