New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual mistakes act

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2017

INCODO LTD v KOP-COAT NEW ZEALAND LTD & ANOR [2017] NZHC 2737

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2737
Court

High Court

Court found a binding contract formed on 22 May 2015. Mr Scott had ostensible authority to bind Kop-Coat NZ and, on the facts and s18 Companies Act, Kop-Coat Inc was bound by his apparent authority. Defendants repudiated the contract on or about 3 July 2015. Claims under the Contractual Remedies Act and Fair Trading Act were considered but no separate damages award made under the Fair Trading Act; misrepresentation claim failed. Damages for loss of chance assessed: court adopted plaintiff expert's valuation ($3,470,000) discounted to a 60% chance to reflect the quality of the lost opportunity…
2 Dec 2015

Campbell v Thomson [2015] NZHC 3026

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3026
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there was a real dispute about whether the ancillary agreement released the defendant, insufficient and contested evidence to conclude as a matter of law that the Rylands cause of action could not succeed (uncertain legal status and insufficient technical evidence on risk/non-natural use), and factual issues over contractor conduct meant the negligence claim could not be finally determined on interlocutory evidence.
31 Oct 2012

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED V TING HC AK CIV-2011-404-007769

Citation

openlaw-9cc8b0bb_7f06_460e_bccd_7216a50b2a3a.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment entered for plaintiff because defendant failed to establish an arguable equitable estoppel: alleged oral promise lacked credible foundation and documentary support, reliance was unreasonable (language barriers, brokers, no application or contemporaneous records), evidence contradicted the asserted promisor and branch, no unconscionability or detriment shown, and other asserted causes were abandoned or unsustainable.
10 Sept 2012

VNL HOLDINGS LIMITED V YARROWS FINE FOODS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2012-443-000162

Citation

openlaw-54d9ce12_626e_4815_857a_441cbb8ed0a0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court concluded there was no evidence of agreement to repay the $1.35M by journal entries, the Deed of Undertaking and Westpac conditions required cash repayment and prior notice so the journal-entry theory failed, there was no reasonably arguable counterclaim under the Contractual Mistakes Act, and VNL did not demonstrate ability to pay; accordingly the statutory demand was not set aside though time to comply was extended.
7 May 2010

COLIN DENNIS ADAMS AND RICHARD NEIL ADAMS AND THE E W PARKER TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED V TOUCHTWO LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-5274

Citation

openlaw-dc48456f_7e84_41ed_aeaf_9841fd43179f.pdf
Court

High Court

The 30 June 2006 Deed of Variation extending the lease term produced the legal fiction of surrender by operation of law and a regrant of a new lease to BFS; the plaintiffs failed to discharge the standard required to displace that fiction and there are contested factual issues (intent, estoppel, mistake, mitigation) that preclude summary judgment for either side, so both summary judgment applications are dismissed.
7 Jul 2008

CHAND V SINGH HC AK CIV 2008-404-002238

Citation

openlaw-8c843310_4908_4b8f_8464_98ea87bda496.pdf
Court

High Court

Appellant breached the termination agreement by failing to take all reasonable steps to refinance the specified vehicles; plaintiff satisfied the summary judgment on liability because no reasonably arguable defence was shown; damages are limited to the actual shortfall caused by that breach reduced proportionally to reflect the plaintiff's subsequent compromise with the creditor, producing a judgment of $60,000.
8 Dec 2006

MACDONALD AND OLIVER V HAYES AND ANOR HC MAS CIV-2006-435-165

Citation

openlaw-1f554a93_1645_488f_8859_ec0a3fc1d9ec.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendants failed to raise any credible defence: the alleged mistake was at most an interpretation issue and was not shown to be material or to produce a substantially unequal exchange; non est factum failed because defendants did not act with reasonable care and were experienced; the purported 'no consensus' defence was a late afterthought and prejudicial; plaintiffs waived the LIM condition making the contract unconditional; damages would be inadequate for sale of unique land. Accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and specific performance ordered.
14 Nov 2005

BURNS V THE NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV 2002 485 913

Citation

openlaw-2e9d06e5_3a28_4456_b8e0_2977bc1c1dba.pdf
Court

High Court

Although some documents should have been discovered, the undisclosed materials would not materially have altered the Burns's decision to settle; there is no evidence the Bank intended to induce settlement by non-disclosure; accordingly the causes of action based on deficient discovery, mistake and unconscionability fail and the proceeding is dismissed.