15 Sept 2016
ZHOU v ARMADALE NINTEEN LTD [2016] NZHC 2191
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 2191
- Court
- High Court
Armadale Ninteen was contractually obliged by the Deed of Nomination to account to Mr Zhou for the deposit and failed to do so; the written loan to Mr Qiu contained no repayment date and thus was repayable on demand, and Mr Zhou proved he made demand (oral demands corroborated by subdivision timing), therefore judgment is entered for $250,000 against Armadale Ninteen and $200,000 against Mr Qiu with interest from 7 October 2015 and costs jointly against both defendants.