| 词条 | Realty Services Holdings Ltd v Slater |
| 释义 |
}}{{Infobox court case | name = Realty Services Holdings Ltd v Slater | court = High Court of New Zealand | date_filed = | image = Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg | date decided = 18 November 2005 | full name = Realty Services Holdings Limited v David Joseph Slater and Geraldine Grace Slater | citations = (2006) 6 NZCPR 657 | judges = Lang J | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = [https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/c4/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/146148c0-83c8-4949-af90-043429a07e21/146148c0-83c8-4949-af90-043429a07e21.pdf High Court judgment] | Keywords = }}Realty Services Holdings Ltd v Slater (2006) 6 NZCPR 657 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a mistake is known to one party (often referred to as a unilateral mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[1] BackgroundRealty Services was a local real estate agent in Rotorua. They had just built a new office building, and on they had 2 apartments in it to sell, Apartment A and Apartment B. Apartment B was quickly sold for $641,000, but they struggled to sell Apartment A for $630,000. Eventually, they agreed to sell the apartment to the Slaters for $300,000 in cash, plus the transfer of a property in Kawaha Point Realty Services agents had valued the property at $300,000 to $330,000, with a registered valuation of $330,000. This implied a sale price of about $630,000. However, matters were complicated by the fact that the Kawaha property was in 2 titles, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Further complicating matters was that in the sales agreement, Realty Services only included Lot 1 to be transferred. After the sale had gone through, Realty Services realised their mistake, and requested the Slaters transfer Lot 2 to them as well. The Slater's refused, saying their intention was only to transfer Lot 1, and they got a valuation of the property for $410,000 to support this claim. HeldThe judge ruled that there was a unilateral mistake here, as the Slaters were well aware of the mistake at the time, considering that they knew they wanted $630,000, and even with Slaters best valuation, valued the transaction at only $470,000. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that Mr Slater had extensive property knowledge and that he had not demurred when the real estate firm valued his property at $330,000. While the judge refused to rectify the contract, he effectively did this anyway, by granting relief by ordering the Slaters to transfer Lot 2 to Realty Services. References1. ^{{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 : High Court of New Zealand cases|New Zealand contract case law|2005 in New Zealand law|2005 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。