FORDE v LI [2016] NZHC 219

FORDE v LI [2016] NZHC 219

There was no requisitionable defect because the title was limited as to parcels and the true boundaries could not be determined without a survey under s 207; no actionable misrepresentation or contractual mistake was established; purchaser was not entitled to cancel; appeal allowed and judgment entered for vendors on counterclaim for losses and forfeiture of deposit.

Citation
(2016) 17 NZCPR 299
Parties
Vendor: Cavan James Forde; Vendor: Martin Cavan McLeod Forde; Purchaser: Hu Jian Li
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for vendors on counterclaim
Legal Topics
Requisitions Clause, Title Defects, Limitations as to Parcels, Misrepresentation, Common Mistake, Contractual Cancellation, Remedies, Forfeiture of Deposit, Counterclaim
Contract Law Property Law Land Registration Law Requisitions Clause Title Defects Limitations as to Parcels Misrepresentation Common Mistake +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cavan James Forde

Vendor

Martin Cavan McLeod Forde

Vendor

Hu Jian Li

Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser validly requisitioned title under clause 5 of the Agreement
  2. 2 Whether vendors made a misrepresentation entitling cancellation under s 7 Contractual Remedies Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether there was a common mistake under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

There was no requisitionable defect because the title was limited as to parcels and the true boundaries could not be determined without a survey under s 207; no actionable misrepresentation or contractual mistake was established; purchaser was not entitled to cancel; appeal allowed and judgment entered for vendors on counterclaim for losses and forfeiture of deposit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for vendors on counterclaim

Orders

  • Judgment for vendors for net sum NZD 30737.69
  • Deposit of NZD 23200 forfeited to vendors