8 Nov 2004
KUMAR AND KUMAR V BAHRAMITASH CA CA51/04
- Citation
- openlaw-b0e7d220_4092_49da_b446_9adc7791b794.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The respondent's settlement notice was invalid because the vendor was not able to deliver the property in the contracted unencumbered state; the purchasers were entitled to specific performance and, alternatively, an abatement in price; clause 4.2(2) is not an exclusive remedy and failure to tender a reduced settlement did not preclude suing for specific performance with abatement; the Court fixed an abatement of NZD 2,000 and ordered specific performance with a set settlement date.