New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contracts enforcement act 1956

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2007

SMADA GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V MIRO FARMS LIMITED CA CA189/06

Citation

openlaw-c1e5097c_5b89_4949_b373_40f87cec1ac1.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence to displace the ordinary inference in land sale negotiations that the parties intended to be bound only upon execution of the altered written agreement by both vendor and purchaser; Smada's signing alone created an offer requiring acceptance by Miro, which did not occur, so no binding contract arose.
17 Apr 2007

KO AND JONG AND ANOR V YANG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-3283

Citation

openlaw-2fc0478b_cd6c_4d26_bae2_2596a12538d9.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because plaintiffs failed to establish as a matter of law that defendants had no reasonably arguable defence: there were contested factual issues about whether an oral agreement to mortgage existed or was enforceable by part performance, whether the solicitors had reasonable grounds to lodge the caveat, and whether causation and quantum could be separated from liability, all requiring trial determination.
28 Aug 2006

RHEE FAMILY TRUST & ANOR V CHO & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-1512

Citation

openlaw-bb1802ef_5167_4864_87ba_51b17fa47a33.pdf
Court

High Court

The guarantee was a valid, operative and binding deed despite naming 'Rhee Family Trust' because the beneficiary was sufficiently identifiable by the document and extrinsic evidence; deed formalities meant no consideration was required; the operative clauses created both an independent principal guarantor obligation and a subsidiary obligation making time of the essence to 28 February 2006, and Dain's failure (including being struck off) triggered guarantor liability; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and plaintiffs' quantified claim was proved.
8 Aug 2006

SMADA GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V MIRO FARMS LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2004-470-529

Citation

openlaw-72562ba0_e5cc_4258_bfd1_639cc5bde338.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to prove on an objective assessment that the vendor intended to be immediately bound by an oral agreement to extend the conditional date; given the prior course of dealing and customary requirement for written, signed or initialled amendments in land transactions, the lapsed offer was not validly revived and no binding contract for sale of land existed.
12 May 2006

BOYLE V ROWLAND-JONES AND ROWLAND-JONES HC WANG CIV-2006-483-008

Citation

openlaw-99d7d5d7_b7b7_4699_a717_98e61a061b29.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that an enforceable option existed: the communications show only an informal 'gentlemen's agreement', the Contracts Enforcement Act required a signed memorandum which was absent, and there was no evidence Mr Rowland-Jones had authority to bind the co-trustee; therefore the caveat could not be sustained and must lapse.

New Zealand Case Law

SMADA GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V MIRO FARMS LIMITED CA CA189/06

KO AND JONG AND ANOR V YANG AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-3283

RHEE FAMILY TRUST & ANOR V CHO & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-1512

SMADA GROUP LIMITED AND ANOR V MIRO FARMS LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2004-470-529

BOYLE V ROWLAND-JONES AND ROWLAND-JONES HC WANG CIV-2006-483-008