CASHMORE V SANDS HC WANG CIV-2004-483-07

CASHMORE V SANDS HC WANG CIV-2004-483-07

The court held the plaintiffs' interpretation of the brochure was not a reasonable meaning to be imputed to the vendor: "P levels 30 plus" was properly read as indicating some areas may be 30+ not an average across the effective area; plaintiffs failed to prove actionable misrepresentation or misleading/deceptive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-a488610c_d34e_4446_8b03_651eee7a95b2.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiffs (trustees): Cashmore Family Trust (Colin R Cashmore; Marion A Cashmore; Richard G W Austin); Second Plaintiff: Colin Reece Cashmore; Defendants (trustees): E C Sands Family Trust (Ernest Charles Sands; Lionel Max Lamb)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil – Misrepresentation; Fair Trading Act; Contractual Remedies Act / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for defendants
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Contractual Remedies Act S6, Fair Trading Act S9, Damages, Carrying Capacity, Soil Fertility (olsen P), Nominee Purchaser / Privity
Contract Law Tort (misrepresentation) Fair Trading Law Property Law Remedies Misrepresentation Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Contractual Remedies Act S6 +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cashmore Family Trust (Colin R Cashmore; Marion A Cashmore; Richard G W Austin)

First Plaintiffs (trustees)

Colin Reece Cashmore

Second Plaintiff

E C Sands Family Trust (Ernest Charles Sands; Lionel Max Lamb)

Defendants (trustees)

Procedural Posture

Civil – Misrepresentation; Fair Trading Act; Contractual Remedies Act / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning and reasonableness of brochure statements ("P levels 30 plus" and livestock figures)
  2. 2 Whether representations were made and relied upon
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs were induced to enter the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the plaintiffs' interpretation of the brochure was not a reasonable meaning to be imputed to the vendor: "P levels 30 plus" was properly read as indicating some areas may be 30+ not an average across the effective area; plaintiffs failed to prove actionable misrepresentation or misleading/deceptive conduct, failed to prove material breach or causation of the claimed losses, and the Trust lacked a proper basis to sue under s6 as induced party; accordingly plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for defendants

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed against the defendants
  • Costs to defendants on a category 2B basis; if parties cannot agree on costs, further memoranda to be filed by 9 March 2007