New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Entire agreement clauses

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2021

LSD 2017 LTD v LANDSCAPING DIRECT LTD [2021] NZHC 3386

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3386
Court

High Court

Representations about a 15-year extension made before LSD's incorporation could not be treated as made to LSD; the later communications (26 September 2017) made clear the extension was undocumented and at best expressed future intent; therefore there was no actionable misrepresentation to LSD, no inducement of the contracts, and reliance was not reasonable in the circumstances; accordingly LSD's claims under the CCLA and FTA fail and are dismissed.
5 Dec 2018

MURREN v SCHAEFFER [2018] NZHC 3176

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3176
Court

High Court

Schaeffer made negligent misstatements and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and deceptive trade practices under Nevada law by representing that plaintiffs' capital would acquire ownership interests in the vineyard (or in an entity owning 80% of it); plaintiffs reasonably relied and suffered loss equal to their capital contributions; deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were not established; limitation and other affirmative defences failed because the right of action was concealed; judgment for plaintiffs for their invested sums with interest and co…
29 Mar 2011

HICKMAN & ORS V TURN AND WAVE LIMITED COA CA796/2009

Citation

HICKMAN & ORS V TURN AND WAVE LIMITED COA CA796/2009
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to amend pleadings was refused for lack of evidential or legal merit and undue prejudice; representatives' statements were attributable to Blue Chip not developers because agents' authority from developers was confined to marketing and presenting SPAs; knowledge of sales agents not imputed to Greenstone or TWL (Icon had director-level knowledge via Bryers but that did not taint SPAs); Blue Chip agreements in issue were not debt securities generally (procurement fee under JVAs was the clearest candidate); option fees under PIP/PAC were exempt as in respect of interests in land but other…
9 Dec 2009

HICKMAN AND ORS V TURN & WAVE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-005871

Citation

openlaw-d05e56cb_e545_421a_b343_b5d9fe709b4b.pdf
Court

High Court

Monrad and, through it, Blue Chip sales agents were agents of TWL solely for the limited task of marketing and selling Bianco apartments; representations about Blue Chip or its investment products were made outside that limited scope and so do not bind TWL; Fair Trading Act and Securities Act claims fail for lack of relevant agency and because statutory exemptions apply; agreements for sale and purchase were not tainted by Blue Chip's illegality and plaintiffs have not validly cancelled their contracts, so plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
25 Nov 2009

LESTER AND ORS V GREENSTONE BARCLAY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GREENSTONE BARCLAY TRUST AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-005159

Citation

openlaw-57acf259_fb39_470e_89d3_a3aca9aa822b.pdf
Court

High Court

Lyell and nominated Blue Chip sales agents were agents of Greenstone Barclay solely for marketing and selling the apartments; representations about Blue Chip products were made outside that limited agency scope and therefore Greenstone Barclay is not liable for them under misrepresentation or the Fair Trading Act; the various Blue Chip investment products either fall within the s5(1)(b) exemption to the Securities Act or are not securities, and even if illegal the sale agreements are not tainted because they were not entered into for the purpose of assisting the illegality nor was Greenstone…
18 Mar 2009

"THE DOCKS" LIMITED V HAN HC AK CIV 2008-404-001436

Citation

openlaw-cf7126c9_dedf_4c90_88e6_77fd7bd447ba.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed because genuine disputed issues of material fact exist (notably whether the vendor's agent made misleading or deceptive representations about resale and value) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence; alleged representations about future increases in value raise factual credibility issues and Contractual Remedies Act claims appear weak as they concern future events; clause 30 may be relevant but does not dispose of the factual disputes on summary judgment.

New Zealand Case Law

LSD 2017 LTD v LANDSCAPING DIRECT LTD [2021] NZHC 3386

MURREN v SCHAEFFER [2018] NZHC 3176

HICKMAN & ORS V TURN AND WAVE LIMITED COA CA796/2009

HICKMAN AND ORS V TURN & WAVE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-005871

LESTER AND ORS V GREENSTONE BARCLAY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GREENSTONE BARCLAY TRUST AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-005159

"THE DOCKS" LIMITED V HAN HC AK CIV 2008-404-001436