词条 | Young v Hunt |
释义 |
| name = Young v Hunt | court = High Court of New Zealand | date_filed = | image = Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg | date decided = 22 November 1983 | full name = Michael Francis James Young v Dawn Donna Hunt | citations = [1984] 2 NZLR 80 | judges = Holland J | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/1983/108.pdf | Keywords = cancellation }} Young v Hunt [1984] 2 NZLR 80 is a case that establishes in New Zealand case law that a contract can not simply be cancelled due to misrepresentation, unless that misrepresentation was a breach of an "essential" term of the contract. BackgroundHunt sold Young a coffee bar in Kaiapoi, Christchurch for $11,300. After only 8 weeks however, Young abandoned the premises on the grounds of misrepresentation, claiming that the turnover was overstated by the vendor by 5%. Young sought cancellation of the contract due to this misrepresentation, and the repayment of his deposit. Hunt countersued for the balance of the contract that remained unpaid. HeldThe court held that as the contract did not make it an essential stipulation that if the turnover was incorrect, that the contract be cancelled, the plaintiff was not legally entitled to cancel the contract. Holland J stated "The use of the world ‘essential’ in s 7(4)(a) of the Contractual Remedies Act [1979] must mean that the party would not proceed with the contract unless the representation were accurate". Consequently, the judge allowed the defendants counterclaim, although interesting enough, refused to make an award for costs on the novel basis that the defendant had been awarded here a large amount of money already. External links
4 : High Court of New Zealand cases|New Zealand contract case law|1983 in New Zealand law|1983 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。