31 Oct 2016
MEMELINK v GRINDLAY (BANKRUPT) [2016] NZHC 2589
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 2589
- Court
- High Court
The court found on documentary and conduct evidence that Mrs Grindlay was a party to the contract; the Grindlays repudiated the contract by their November 2013 conduct but did not validly cancel under the Contractual Remedies Act because they were not ready and willing to perform and the defects alleged were not of sufficient gravity or proven misrepresentations to justify cancellation; plaintiff was entitled to damages under s9, reduced by the agreed book value of the three trucks ($8,213.33), yielding $176,786.67, with interest at 6.5% p.a. from 12 April 2014; defamatory statements were mad…