New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inducement

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2022

SUNRISE MANAGEMENT LTD v BUNNINGS LTD [2022] NZHC 317

Citation

[2022] NZHC 317
Court

High Court

On the affidavit material it was reasonably arguable that Bunnings made pre-contractual representations about not supplying imported Chinese weatherboards, that those representations preceded and induced formation of the supply arrangement, and that Sunrise has a quantified counterclaim for recladding loss (approx $305,050) exceeding the statutory demand ($202,312.11); accordingly the statutory demand must be set aside. Alternatively, even if the contractual no set-off clause applied, the circumstances were not in the normal run of cases and it would be unconscionable to enforce the demand.
22 Dec 2016

WINDSOR & Ors v SLOANE [2016] NZHC 3197

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3197
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendant established an arguable defence that the vendors' advertising representation that the childcare centre had a 'waiting list' was a misrepresentation capable of inducing him to enter the contract and of materially affecting the benefit of the bargain under s7(4), creating a real issue for trial.
12 Nov 2015

OVERTON HOLDINGS LIMITED V APN NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZCA 526 [12 November 2015]

Citation

(2015) 17 NZCPR 251
Court

Court of Appeal

No actionable misrepresentation was established; even if an implied representation existed, clause 18.1 was a valid non-reliance clause operateable under s4(1) Contractual Remedies Act to preclude reliance; Overton did not prove inducement or loss; no breach of Fair Trading Act s14; cl49 did not impose an obligation on APN to remediate structural defects; appeal dismissed.
10 Nov 2011

MANGAWHAI DEVELOPMENTS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V ROLLS HC AK CIV-2009-404-4253

Citation

openlaw-1d277a64_6084_473b_909e_39556200e10a.pdf
Court

High Court

Agent's oral representations and brochure constituted representations on behalf of the plaintiff; representations that lot 14 had clear sea views were false in substance, were essential to the defendant's decision to contract and induced him to enter the contract; the misrepresentation also substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the defendant; accordingly the defendant lawfully cancelled the contract under s7 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and plaintiff's application for specific performance failed.
29 Oct 2010

BLUNDELL V QUINN HC AK CIV-2009-404-6905

Citation

openlaw-56f84897_014c_416c_ae28_430b02a8de3a.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying a robust assessment of the evidence the judge rejected the defendant's account of when he discovered the lack of subdivision consent as inherently lacking credibility and found he discovered it prior to contracting and proceeded deliberately, so the alleged representation did not induce entry and the defendant had no arguable defence; summary judgment was therefore granted for the plaintiff.
19 Mar 2010

ALAN DOUGLAS BLOOR AND ORS V IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC ROT CIV-2004-463-000425

Citation

openlaw-d2e49e1a_4f36_4ef7_b677_ddb1b71d2603.pdf
Court

High Court

The insurer failed to prove material non-disclosure or inducement to avoid the policies; the Businesspack replacement cover was limited to $260,000 plus GST as per the schedule; insurer waived further disclosure by failing to inquire after relevant risk information; plaintiff succeeds on breach of contract and is awarded specified damages including penalty interest; Contractual Remedies Act and Fair Trading Act claims fail.
18 Jun 2009

GEORGE AND HOLLAND V TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-004-890

Citation

openlaw-341a8708_e4b8_49bb_b020_75e20194a3eb.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to prove that Bluestone or its employee induced them to enter the loan by oppressive means under s120(c); the evidence established that misleading purpose and income information originated with the plaintiffs and their broker, there was no reliable evidence that Bluestone instructed falsification or knew borrowers could not afford the loan, and therefore the contract could not be reopened.
3 Sept 2008

HERNE BAY HERITAGE LTD V DNS CONTRACTING LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-000806

Citation

openlaw-f83497d9_469e_4770_9fc3_49ab097d05bd.pdf
Court

High Court

The documentary evidence (quotation and acceptance between DNS and Ebert and contemporaneous emails) irreconcilably contradicted Herne Bay's affidavit evidence that a $40,000 credit had been given to it; accordingly Herne Bay failed to establish a fairly arguable dispute under s 290(4)(a) and the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.
13 Nov 2007

NJ HOOGEVEEN (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT) LTD & ANOR V WJ LYNCH (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT) LTD & ORS HC HAM CIV 2007-419-000749

Citation

openlaw-b20c0b97_7946_43a1_995c_663ff5ec4c92.pdf
Court

High Court

The 27 January 2004 memorandum accurately recorded legal advice received by the defendants and was not a misrepresentation or misleading conduct; plaintiffs failed to prove defendants knew of any unilateral mistake nor that the parties shared the identical mistake about the partnership term; therefore none of plaintiffs' causes of action under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 or Fair Trading Act 1986 could succeed and summary judgment was entered for defendants; the deed of resignation is effective and fixed sums under it are payable, with liability for the bal…
17 Apr 2007

BURNS AND BURNS V ANZ NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ZEALAND SC 97/2006

Citation

SC 97/2006
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found that although inadequate discovery amounted to a misrepresentation, the undisclosed documents would not have assisted the applicants to establish the necessary brokerage/agency relationship and therefore the misrepresentation did not induce the settlement; materiality is a relevant factor but the Court of Appeal did not err by focusing on whether the content of the undisclosed documents would have changed the applicants' decision.