New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Course of dealing

Legal area

Court

5 May 2016

STEEL CO LIMITED v PIPES NZ LIMITED [2016] NZCA 175

Citation

[2016] NZCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held Steel Co failed to prove its standard terms were incorporated into the one‑off Esk Valley and Amethyst contracts; accordingly the exclusion and limitation clauses in those terms did not apply. Steel Co breached implied terms under s16 of the Sale of Goods Act and is liable for Pipes NZ's losses including liquidated damages because such consequential losses were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties; the appeal was dismissed.
14 Apr 2016

MONTECILLO TRUST v STEVENSON BROWN LIMITED [2016] NZHC 684

Citation

[2016] NZHC 684
Court

High Court

The SFA was not incorporated into the contract because the agent's knowledge was limited, he was not an 'agent to know' in respect of the defendant's contractual terms and the Trust did not understand him to possess binding knowledge; consequently late, unsigned provision of the SFA did not bind the Trust. On limitation the cause of action in negligence accrued when Montecillo received the Tonkin & Taylor report in January 2008 which made the structural/foundation risk apparent, and the claim filed 19 December 2013 was within the Limitation Act 1950 period.
16 Dec 2014

PASCOE PROPERTIES LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA 755/2012[2014] NZCA 616

Citation

[2014] NZCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Ministry, through its senior officer (Grindey) and a course of dealing, had represented that its property consultant (Benjamin) had authority to negotiate and thereby cloaked him with ostensible authority; however, no binding renewal contract was formed because the correspondence objectively contemplated further steps (preparation and execution of a formal variation/deed) before the Ministry would be bound. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed though leave was granted to admit fresh evidence.
30 Aug 2013

HARVEY & ORS v GATESHEAD INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS [2013] NZHC 2253

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2253
Court

High Court

The Court held the joint tenancy between Mr and Mrs Harvey was severed in equity by mutual agreement (and alternatively by course of dealing) prior to Mr Harvey's death; that equitable severance did not deplete the bounty available to creditors at the date of the Agreement and therefore s 47 PRA did not reverse the severance; accordingly Mr Harvey's half interest did not vest in the Official Assignee and the application to vest the entire estate in the Official Assignee was dismissed.
24 Feb 2012

WESTBURY THOROUGHBREDS LIMITED V WEBSTER (AKA WATSON) HC AK CIV-2011-404-5886

Citation

openlaw-c88ecda9_2466_4a59_84e7_341f8ce95e2c.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiff's application for discovery because the discovery sought was not strictly necessary to determine whether the defendant had an arguable defence to the claim; the plaintiff already had a respectable argument based on course of dealing and the GST records would only be ancillary ('icing on the cake') with limited probative weight, and ordering discovery would undermine the summary nature of the proceeding.
15 Feb 2010

WAITATAPIA STATION LIMITED AND ORS V TURKS POULTRY FARM LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-454-000334

Citation

openlaw-cefdf8de_aa48_48f4_a848_a71cd5b81670.pdf
Court

High Court

On an objective assessment of the parties' words and conduct the court finds that a firm oral price of $465 per tonne was offered by Turks' agent in early November 2008 and accepted by the plaintiffs, creating binding contracts for the 2008/09 season; that price was not subject to an unexpressed market‑adjustment reservation and Turks' unilateral reduction breached those contracts; the court also finds Turks agreed to purchase the specified additional areas (Waitatapia 292.9 ha; Green 30 ha).
18 Dec 2008

BRENNAN INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT HONG KONG LIMITED TRADING AS BRENNAN INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT V BLUE Q CORPORATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-004308

Citation

openlaw-b5ffb94f_4dd8_4f25_9ca9_961473237c9b.pdf
Court

High Court

Mondiale was Melric's agent and had knowledge of and authority to accept the standard terms in Brennan's bill of lading; those standard limitation and notice clauses (paragraphs 19 and 20) were not unusual or unreasonable and were therefore incorporated into and binding on Melric, permitting Brennan to rely on the clauses to limit liability (subject to further submissions on quantum and whether time limits defeat the claim).
22 Sept 2008

JONES V AUTO IMPORTS AND WHOLESALE LTD HC WN CIV-2008-435-183

Citation

openlaw-90be2dd4_4bda_4551_b72c_d4dae9219bf3.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to prove on the affidavits that a binding retention of title/security agreement existed between the applicant and respondent; invoices named Alps Trading Corporation as vendor and the evidence of a course of dealing/online acceptance was insufficient and too informal, therefore the s167 application to maintain the registration was refused.