17 May 2006
ROCHIS LTD V CHAMBERS HAM CIV 2005-419-1028
- Citation
- openlaw-85bab551_94b2_48fc_bd4d_943d4a37b542.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The contract's minimum US$ price made exchange‑rate movements a pertinent and foreseeable source of loss; therefore Rochis' payment to compensate the vendors for the fall in NZD was recoverable only as general damages under clause 9.4(1)(b). Clause 3.9(1)'s interest provision did not preclude recovery of exchange‑rate damages because such losses could not sensibly be liquidated as interest at contract formation. Clause 1.3(1) should not be read to impose disproportionate joint and several liability on the Chambers family for lots they alone contributed.