New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contracts (privity) act 1982 s4

Legal area

Court

20 Aug 2009

SOUTH V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-5116

Citation

openlaw-2840eaa6_b0a8_4318_9387_07e80dd57c9a.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 91(2) of the Building Act 1991 does not bar a contract claim for breach of a vendor warranty where the cause of action is the breach of that contractual warranty; the relevant "act or omission" for limitation purposes in such contract claims is the date the warranty was given/breached (the date of contract), not the date the underlying building works were carried out.
9 Jul 2009

JOHN CARR LAIDLAW AND CAROL ANNE LAIDLAW V GEOFFREY FRANCIS PARSONAGE AND TIMOTHY JOHN GOULDING CA CA304/2008

Citation

openlaw-e95af30e_672e_4fe5_884e_09ad7f354374.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

A nominee purchaser described in the contract as 'X or nominee' is a sufficiently designated beneficiary under s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 so as to enforce contractual warranties; applying that rule and the affidavits showing the trust paid repair costs, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the trustees.
30 Apr 2008

G F PARSONAGE AND T J GOULDING V J C LAIDLAW AND C A LAIDLAW HC AK CIV 2007-404-004484

Citation

openlaw-556582f0_a11c_4640_90bc_5de910e94967.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the phrase "and or nominee" in the sale agreement sufficiently designates the trust as beneficiary under s4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 (following the reasoning in Rattrays and Ballance), therefore the trustees as nominees had standing to enforce the vendor warranty in clause 6.2(5); defendants had no arguable defence to that contractual cause of action and summary judgment was appropriate for proven repair costs and the inspection fee, while agency, novation and other causes were unsuitable for summary determination.
22 May 2007

DYSART TIMBERS LTD V NIELSEN AND ANOR CA CA253/05

Citation

openlaw-893648b9_16d0_42af_8706_225db8206a4c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Clause 5, read in the context of the recitals and the deed as a whole, referred only to the Castlerock and Trimac companies covered by the deed (the debts identified in the background) and did not operate to release the respondents' liabilities under their personal guarantees in respect of the Castlerock Group debt; accordingly the respondents remained liable and judgment was entered for the appellant.

New Zealand Case Law

SOUTH V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-5116

JOHN CARR LAIDLAW AND CAROL ANNE LAIDLAW V GEOFFREY FRANCIS PARSONAGE AND TIMOTHY JOHN GOULDING CA CA304/2008

G F PARSONAGE AND T J GOULDING V J C LAIDLAW AND C A LAIDLAW HC AK CIV 2007-404-004484

DYSART TIMBERS LTD V NIELSEN AND ANOR CA CA253/05