21 Dec 2010
GOLDSMITH AND ORS V CARTER AND ORS HC TAU CIV-2010-470-281
- Citation
- openlaw-d2aefc5b_125c_4234_81c2_403aee0eec4a.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Although the agreement could be characterised as a joint venture in respect of developing two apartments, the High Court held it was not a general fiduciary relationship that could support implying a term obliging appellants to bear additional costs; such an implied term would contradict clear express contract terms (notably clause 16 obliging Riverglen to cause construction arrangements and fixing the $516,000 price), so the District Court's orders imposing initial cost obligations on appellants were set aside and the matter remitted for further proceedings.