“Pendergast v Attorney-General”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

词条

Pendergast v Attorney-General

释义

Background
Held
References

{{Multiple issues|{{Underlinked|date=September 2015}}{{Orphan|date=September 2015}}
}}{{Infobox court case
| name = Pendergast v Attorney-General
| court = High Court of New Zealand
| date_filed =
| image = Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
| date decided =
| full name = Pendergast v Attorney-General
| citations = (1998) 3 NZ ConvC 192,729
| judges = Penlington J
| prior actions =
| subsequent actions =
| opinions =
| transcripts =
| Keywords =
}}Pendergast v Attorney-General (1998) 3 NZ ConvC 192,729 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the availability of rectification where a unilateral mistake exists.^[1]

Background

Pendergast had a perpetual renewable lease with a Domain Board. During a rent renewal, a new lease agreement was prepared. Unbeknown to Pendergast, the Domain Board hid in it a clause giving it a right to cancel the lease.

Pendergast signed the new lease, thinking it was just the rental being changed.

Held

Pendergast claim for rectification succeeded. Penlington J said "This aspect of the law relating to rectification is based on the equitable principle of fair dealing between the parties"

References

1. ^{{cite book |title=An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand |edition=4th |last1=Chetwin |first1=Maree |last2=Graw |first2=Stephen |last3=Tiong |first3=Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |page={{page needed|date=January 2014}}}}

4 : Court of Appeal of New Zealand cases|New Zealand contract case law|1998 in New Zealand law|1998 in case law

随便看

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。