New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Mistake (contractual mistakes act 1977)

  • 15 Sept 2011

    WESTWOOD GROUP HOLDINGS V RILEAN CONSTRUCTION (SOUTH ISLAND) LIMITED HC INV CIV 2010-425-000245

    Citation
    openlaw-b97491d2_f9cb_4833_92d2_11e98f24681f.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Summary judgment refused because the defendant raised tenable defences: it is arguable on the evidence that design responsibility lay with the principal and consultants so that the contractor's obligation to achieve absolute watertightness was subject to the limitations of the design; the deed of warranty obligation and mistake and implied‑term defences are reasonably arguable and raise factual issues requiring trial or fuller inquiry.

    • Watertightness warranty
    • Contract interpretation
    • Implied terms
    • Mistake (contractual mistakes act 1977)
    • Deed of warranty / practical completion
    • Fair trading act s9

  • 29 Jul 2011

    BODY CORPORATE 86975 v FOVEN LIMITED HC WN CIV-2011-485-538

    Citation
    openlaw-0f308a4a_7abd_4569_9e1e_4392ebea10e5.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Summary judgment was dismissed because the November 2008 agreement created an arguable continuing contractual right in the defendant (including a claim for damages and set-off) and factual and legal issues (including potential relief for mistake and construction of unit title rules) remained that required trial evidence; the plaintiff therefore failed to show there was no real defence.

    • Body corporate levies
    • Common property vs unit boundaries
    • Contract formation and repudiation
    • Set-off and counterclaims
    • Mistake (contractual mistakes act 1977)
    • Summary judgment standards

  • 31 Oct 2007

    GLORIA ANNE YVONNE HILDRED V SHARON ANN STRONG CA CA287/05

    Citation
    openlaw-28448db5_e6bb_4a9a_b481_0608aa17ca16.pdf
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court upheld the High Court: the mediation settlement was a binding contract and the appellant failed to prove duress, unconscionability, misrepresentation or mistake at the required threshold to vitiate it; absent compelling evidence the Court will not permit re-litigation of a freely entered mediated settlement; the High Court's variation under the CMA to remove ORL references stands and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Settlement agreement
    • Mediation confidentiality and admissibility
    • Vitiation of contract
    • Mistake (contractual mistakes act 1977)
    • Unconscionability
    • Duress