DELMONT v BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 762

DELMONT v BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 762

The High Court upheld the District Court finding that the sale was commercially reasonable because independent assessments by an experienced valuer and the auction house supported the sale price, the appellant had an opportunity to market the car and failed to provide evidence of a higher achievable market value or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 762
Parties
Appellant: Michael Andrew Delmont; Respondent: BMW Financial Services New Zealand Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Recovery of Debt Following Repossession and Sale Under Credit (repossession) Act 1997 / Appeal to High Court From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Repossession, Commercial Reasonableness of Sale, Valuation of Secured Goods, Duty to Obtain Best Price, Advertising and Disclosure Obligations
Secured Transactions Contract Property Consumer Credit Law Civil Procedure Repossession Commercial Reasonableness of Sale Valuation of Secured Goods +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Andrew Delmont

Appellant

BMW Financial Services New Zealand Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recovery of Debt Following Repossession and Sale Under Credit (repossession) Act 1997 / Appeal to High Court From District Court Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent sold the repossessed vehicle at an undervalue in breach of its duty to use all reasonable efforts to obtain the best price
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to obtain an appropriate valuation from a sufficiently expert valuer
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed to advertise or provide relevant materials to obtain a proper market price

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the District Court finding that the sale was commercially reasonable because independent assessments by an experienced valuer and the auction house supported the sale price, the appellant had an opportunity to market the car and failed to provide evidence of a higher achievable market value or to mitigate loss, and therefore no breach causing measurable loss was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent entitled to indemnity costs in terms of the loan agreement dated 27 January 2009