New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Warranty

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2023

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v FUJITSU NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3598

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3598
Court

High Court

The RFP statements and subsequent demonstrations and confirmations were incorporated into the contractual warranties in the MSA; those warranties were strict and were breached because Quintiq's standard functionality could not meet the Department's requirements without substantial customisation and significant SAP integration work. Fujitsu is liable for wasted expenditure and licence payments paid under the failed project; Dassault engaged in misleading conduct but contractual limitation clauses between Fujitsu and Dassault preclude most FTA/CCLA recovery except that it would be unfair and un…
31 May 2021

ASPHALT SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED v COLE JOHN LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1257
Court

High Court

The High Court held the written warranty was enforceable by CJL under s 12 CCLA, the warranty obliged Asco to prepare grades and ensure water flow to existing drainage structures, Asco's work was defective and liable for remediation costs, but under s 18(2) CCLA Asco was entitled to set-off the unpaid contract balance that would have been payable had the work been properly performed; accordingly the original damages award was reduced by that set-off resulting in a substituted award of NZD 50,089.65.
5 Oct 2020

LENDLEASE CAPITAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED v ARENA LIVING HOLDINGS LIMITED [2020] NZCA 471

Citation

[2020] NZCA 471
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to appeal because the proposed appeal raises serious questions of law regarding the required content and particularity of contractual notices under cl 10.4 and has a reasonable prospect of success; the specific questions set out at [5] are appropriate for determination on appeal.
11 Jun 2020

ARENA LIVING HOLDINGS LIMITED v LENDLEASE CAPITAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1308

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1308
Court

High Court

Although the applicant identified arguable errors and the issues raised were of general importance, leave to appeal was refused because the interests of justice and overall efficiency favored leaving the question of the sufficiency of the maintenance-notice to be decided at trial. The interlocutory decision dismissing the strike-out application stands until trial or successful appeal, and the maintenance allegations will remain unless overruled at trial.
2 May 2018

LING v YL NZ INVESTMENT LIMITED [2018] NZCA 133

Citation

(2018) 20 NZCPR 830
Court

Court of Appeal

The contractual phrase "registered under the GST Act" incorporated the statutory concept of a "registered person" (ie registered or liable to be registered); the vendor warranted she was not and would not be a registered person at settlement; evidence including IRD communications, rejection of the input tax refund, the vendor's affidavit and silence, and the proposed post-settlement variation established on the balance of probabilities the vendor was liable to be registered at settlement and thus in breach of the warranty, so summary judgment was properly entered against her.
10 Nov 2016

ACTIVE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS LIMITED v ARCHER SPRAY PAINTERS (2012) LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2679

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2679
Court

High Court

Active failed to prove a substantial dispute or a quantifiable set-off because assertions of a three-year workmanship warranty were unsupported by documentary evidence and specific, persuasive quantification; accordingly the statutory demand could not be set aside under s 290(4).
23 Feb 2016

TTAH LTD v KONINKLIJKE TEN CATE NV [2016] NZHC 237

Citation

[2016] NZHC 237
Court

High Court

Texas is an available forum but, on balance of relevant factors, including the North American nexus of the underlying facts favouring Texas and countervailing factors favoring New Zealand (choice of New Zealand law, parties' contractual connections to New Zealand, enforcement issues, and efficient resolution of related causes), Texas is not shown to be clearly or distinctly more appropriate than New Zealand; accordingly the strike-out or stay application is dismissed.
12 Jul 2013

TRANSPORT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v PETROLEUM LOGISTICS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1769

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1769
Court

High Court

Clause 11 did not apply because the amount recovered by TIL was damages for breach of warranty and not a "payment due" (a payable, ascertained debt); accordingly contractual interest at 10% was refused, but interest was ordered under s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908 from 27 July 2011 to the date of judgment; TIL was entitled to costs on a scale 2B basis of $51,939 and disbursements of $5,665.81; indemnity costs and an order for the defendant to pay TIL's valuation costs were declined.
9 Mar 2012

SINGH & ANOR V RUTHERFORD & ANOR HC AK CIV 2011-404-005865

Citation

openlaw-d3d6d10a_181e_4c25_b450_c6c20f2b00f0.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed: an express contractual warranty cannot be defeated merely by a purchaser's limited or inadequately conducted due diligence where the due diligence clause was for the purchaser's benefit and could be waived and where the specific condition clause did not expressly require verification of the warranted matter; contributory negligence was not available where negligence was not pleaded; the matter is remitted to the District Court to determine causation and quantum of damages flowing from the breach of warranty.
12 Apr 2010

INDUSTRIAL GROUP LTD V J D BAKKER AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-006432

Citation

openlaw-55e7dc3c_bc4b_424f_b4df_c9ae05bf620f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court applied South Australian law to the substantive disputes, held that IGL had an arguable claim only to the contractually prescribed price adjustment under clause 2.2 (reducing total to A$1,310,000), that IGL had affirmed the contracts and could not rescind the deed or rely on Unibag's termination, that IGL had not proved a fairly arguable counterclaim or set-off sufficient under s 290(4)(b) to reduce net liability below the prescribed amount, and that Fair Trading claims were time barred; accordingly statutory demands were set aside only to the extent of the adjusted sums and IGL was…