New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Merchantable quality

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2023

WYNDHAM CONTRACTING LIMITED v WEBBLINE AGRICULTURE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2340 [25 August 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2340
Court

High Court

The Court held Webbline established the r 5.45 threshold for Wyndham because Wyndham had been deregistered after disposing of assets, failed to respond to enquiries and did not oppose the application, and Wyndham therefore must provide security of $30,000; Webbline did not establish the threshold for Lintley because partnership financial evidence showed substantial equity and no credible reason to believe inability to pay, so the security application as to Lintley was dismissed. Any security held in plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account must be subject to an undertaking to hold undisbursed un…
9 Jun 2021

WYNDHAM CONTRACTING LTD v WEBBLINE AGRICULTURE LTD [2021] NZHC 1341

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1341
Court

High Court

Weighing the factors for convenience and fairness, particularly the number and location of witnesses (predominantly Southland witnesses and expert evidence for plaintiffs), and the strong factual connection to Southland, the court was affirmatively satisfied the trial can be more conveniently and fairly tried in Invercargill; accordingly the proceedings are transferred and the trial is to be held in Invercargill and all subsequent steps taken there.
8 Dec 2020

BASF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v BRIAN ROBERTS (1998) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 634

Citation

[2020] NZCA 634
Court

Court of Appeal

The Associate Judge correctly exercised evaluative judgment and found BRL's affidavit evidence, taken with corroborating matters and admissions, met the low credibility threshold to show a substantial dispute or apparent counterclaim concerning merchantable quality; accordingly the statutory demand was properly set aside and the Court of Appeal dismissed BASF's appeal.
17 Mar 2020

BRIAN ROBERTS (1998) LIMITED v BASF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 537

Citation

[2020] NZHC 537
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that despite weak and partially uncorroborated evidence, BRL had raised a genuine dispute about whether BASF's Glasurit paint was of merchantable quality and whether BRL was liable for the liquidated damages claimed; therefore the statutory demand was set aside and the dispute must be determined at trial.
15 Aug 2019

JK TRADING LTD v RIMPRO-TEC LTD (IN LIQ) [2019] NZHC 1989

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1989
Court

High Court

The court held that, on the matrix of fact and the parties' subsequent conduct, RimPro-Tec in practice controlled design and manufacture and thus bore responsibility and risk for product quality; an implied term existed that the licensed design/product would be fit for its intended purpose and of merchantable quality; RimPro-Tec breached those implied terms and therefore was not entitled to lawfully cancel the licence; judgment awarded to JK Trading for NZD 223,165.70 plus interest and costs.
28 Aug 2018

THODE v TURNERS AND GROWERS HORTICULTURE LTD [2018] NZHC 2234

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2234
Court

High Court

Application granted in part and dismissed in part. The Court ordered defendants, under r 8.19, to file an affidavit by 12 September 2018 stating whether (a) genetic testing of the four mother plants was done and, if so, the methodology/results, (b) tests/trials in 2014–2015 showing ENZA Red susceptibility to Psa exist and their methodology/results, (c) photographs/notes from the inspection of the Enza Red PVR block in Chile exist, and (d) the defendants' 'statement' to Chilean authorities and any communications with SAG (2014–2016) exist; if documents are no longer controlled, defendants must…
3 Mar 2017

BARONI FOODS LIMITED v P K WHOLESALE SUPPLIES LIMITED [2017] NZHC 335

Citation

[2017] NZHC 335
Court

High Court

Court found on balance of probabilities that (1) defendant agreed on 27 February 2014 (varied 28 February) to purchase all stock on the updated invoice for $194,325.93 payable by instalments and breached that contract; plaintiff entitled to damages of $123,814.02 plus interest from 22 April 2015; (2) for order 1808 payment was due seven days after the container was received by the seller, goods were unconditionally appropriated when set aside in cool storage so property and risk passed to defendant, defendant's purported rescission was invalid because the cheese was of merchantable quality, a…
15 Sept 2015

WATER GUARD NZ LTD v MIDGEN ENTERPRISES LTD [2015] NZHC 2227

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2227
Court

High Court

Court found no actionable misrepresentation by Midgen as to cash sales — contemporaneous documents and due diligence supported 439 sales and references to 600 were orders/ambiguous; Bragulla's statements about higher sales were proven but did not cause plaintiff's purchase decision so no compensable loss under s43 or deceit; factual defects proven: (1) weld failures in large stainless chambers of Gold II/Platinum II; (2) overheating defect in Platinum II with two lamps; (3) defective white glue in Gold III/Silver II/Silver III causing leaks — these made affected units unfit for purpose/ not o…
24 Feb 2015

BARONI FOODS LTD v P K WHOLESALE SUPPLIES LTD [2015] NZHC 255

Citation

[2015] NZHC 255
Court

High Court

Summary judgment dismissed on first and fourth causes because plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of showing there is no defence: material conflicts in affidavit evidence and contemporaneous documents left real doubt whether an oral contract for all stock existed and whether property in order 1808 had passed or been unconditionally appropriated such that s50 Sale of Goods Act applied; therefore both causes require trial or further factual resolution.
15 Oct 2014

INTERNATIONAL NZ TRADING LTD v WOOD [2014] NZHC 2540

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2540
Court

High Court

On the evidence the first defendant had responsibility for drafting and completing the contract and her name was inserted as seller; both the first defendant and the company were effectively sellers; the goods supplied were defective and failed to meet the sample and statutory standards (merchantable quality and fitness for purpose), constituting breaches of contract and the Sale of Goods Act; plaintiff entitled to recover proven losses subject to mitigation (credit for salvage), and contractual penalties were assessed as quantified in the judgment.