New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual remedies act s6

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2016

ALDRIE HOLDINGS LIMITED v CLOVER BAY PARK LIMITED [2016] NZHC 250

Citation

(2016) 17 NZCPR 127
Court

High Court

The Court found that Mr Prout made objectively misleading representations about effective area, average production and herd availability which, in the context and given the purchaser's enquiries, had the capacity to and did operate as a cause of Aldrie's loss under Fair Trading Act s9. The Court awarded damages for the reduction in value but reduced compensation by 50% for Aldrie's failure to undertake due diligence; there was insufficient evidence of dishonest or reckless conduct to establish deceit and insufficient evidence of representor intention to induce for liability under Contractual…
30 Jun 2014

PENNEY & BURNS v NG [2014] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

The court found the seventh defendant did make the treated timber representation but the plaintiffs did not rely on it as a causative factor in entering the contract; the representation was a background factor and thus claims against the agents for misrepresentation, negligent misstatement and breach of s9 Fair Trading Act fail for lack of causation under s43. The vendor (first defendant) breached the contractual warranty cl 6.2(5) by permitting re-cladding without required consents; plaintiffs awarded liability against vendor with quantum reserved and $20,000 general damages awarded now.
5 Mar 2012

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010

Citation

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that territorial authorities can owe a duty of care when negligently supplying LIM information relied upon to the claimant's detriment; the proper measure of damages depends on the nature of the claim — damages under s6 CRA are prima facie expectation/performance (including cost of cure) but cost of cure is appropriate only where it is reasonable and reflects the claimant's performance interest; a tortfeasor's liability is limited to the loss caused in tort (detriment) and can be reduced or extinguished by recovery from the contracting wrongdoer; equitable contribution requires…
16 Dec 2011

MALANINA & ORS V SNOW-JANDER HC AK CIV-2010-404-008428

Citation

openlaw-2d268e50_0761_4f30_92e5_ec505bae3aa0.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found that the plaintiff was induced by misrepresentation under s6 of the Contractual Remedies Act, measured damages by the difference between purchase price ($795,000) and the market valuation ($615,000) giving $180,000; awarded reasonable consequential losses for investigators and non-party discovery; declined to award damages for stress for lack of sufficient evidence; and awarded costs on a 2B basis.
4 Feb 2009

MIKITASOV V COLLINS SC 76/2008

Citation

SC 76/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish an arguable point of general or public importance or other basis under the Supreme Court Act 2003; the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows did not apply because prior use was not shown to have been for the benefit of the part transferred; the respondent's alleged representations were not established on the applicant's affidavits and the case was appropriately resolved on summary judgment.
7 Feb 2007

CASHMORE V SANDS HC WANG CIV-2004-483-07

Citation

openlaw-a488610c_d34e_4446_8b03_651eee7a95b2.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the plaintiffs' interpretation of the brochure was not a reasonable meaning to be imputed to the vendor: "P levels 30 plus" was properly read as indicating some areas may be 30+ not an average across the effective area; plaintiffs failed to prove actionable misrepresentation or misleading/deceptive conduct, failed to prove material breach or causation of the claimed losses, and the Trust lacked a proper basis to sue under s6 as induced party; accordingly plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

ALDRIE HOLDINGS LIMITED v CLOVER BAY PARK LIMITED [2016] NZHC 250

PENNEY & BURNS v NG [2014] NZHC 1486

MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010

MALANINA & ORS V SNOW-JANDER HC AK CIV-2010-404-008428

MIKITASOV V COLLINS SC 76/2008

CASHMORE V SANDS HC WANG CIV-2004-483-07