| Automobile Centre (Auckland) Ltd v Facer | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Automobile Centre (Auckland) Ltd v Facer |
| Decided | 6 August 1974 |
| Citation(s) | [1974] 2 NZLR 767 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Cooke J |
| Keywords | |
| illegal contracts | |
Automobile Centre (Auckland) Ltd v Facer [1974] 2 NZLR 767 is an often cited case regarding illegal contracts under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970. [1] It was one of the first cases decided since the law was passed.
Automobile Centre sold Facer a car. The car did not have a Warrant of Fitness that lasted more than the 5 months that regulation 53 of the Transport Regulations 1956 legally requires, with a penalty upon conviction, of a fine.
Facer subsequently used this breach of the law to not pay for the car, claiming the contract was illegal. and thus not legally enforceable.
The car dealer ultimately sued Facer to obtain payment.
The court ruled that the Regulations' purpose was road safety, and not consumer protection as Facer had argued. That being the case, the judge noted that the interests of road safety could be served by fines rather than go as far as making the purchases illegal, and ruled that Facer was liable to pay for the car.
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.
Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians walking in or crossing a roadway if that act contravenes traffic regulations. The term originated in the United States as a derivation of the phrase jay-drivers, people who drove horse-drawn carriages and automobiles on the wrong side of the road, before taking its current meaning. Jaywalking was coined as the automobile arrived in the street in the context of the conflict between pedestrian and automobiles, more specifically the nascent automobile industry.
In law, a warranty is an expressed or implied promise or assurance of some kind. The term's meaning varies across legal subjects. In property law, it refers to a covenant by the grantor of a deed. In insurance law, it refers to a promise by the purchaser of an insurance about the thing or person to be insured.
Street-legal, road-legal, or road-going, refers to a vehicle such as a car, motorcycle, or light truck that is equipped and licensed for use on public roads, being therefore roadworthy. This will require specific configurations of lighting, signal lights, and safety equipment. Some specialty vehicles that will not be operated on roads, therefore, do not need all the features of a street-legal vehicle; examples are a vehicle used only off-road that is trailered to its off-road operating area, and a racing car that is used only on closed race tracks and therefore does not need all the features of a street-legal vehicle. As well as motor vehicles, the street-legal distinction applies in some jurisdictions to track bicycles that lack street-legal brakes and lights. Street-legality rules can even affect racing helmets, which possess visual fields too narrow for use on an open road without the risk of missing a fast-moving vehicle.
A wheel clamp, also known as wheel boot, parking boot, or Denver boot, is a device that is designed to prevent motor vehicles from being moved. In its most common form, it consists of a clamp that surrounds a vehicle wheel, designed to prevent removal of both itself and the wheel.
A civil penalty or civil fine is a financial penalty imposed by a government agency as restitution for wrongdoing. The wrongdoing is typically defined by a codification of legislation, regulations, and decrees. The civil fine is not considered to be a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct. As such, a civil penalty, in itself, will not carry jail time or other legal penalties. For example, if a person were to dump toxic waste in a state park, the state would have the same right to seek to recover the cost of cleaning up the mess as would a private landowner, and to bring the complaint to a court of law, if necessary.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
Mobile phone use while driving is common but it is dangerous due to its potential for causing distracted driving and subsequent crashes. Due to the number of crashes that are related to conducting calls on a phone and texting while driving, some jurisdictions have made the use of calling on a phone while driving illegal in an attempt to curb the practice, with varying levels of efficacy. Many jurisdictions have enacted laws making handheld mobile phone use illegal. Many jurisdictions allow use of a hands-free device. Driving while using a hands-free device has been found by some studies to provide little to no benefit versus holding the device itself and carrying on a conversation. In some cases restrictions are directed only at minors, those who are newly qualified license holders, or to drivers in school zones. In addition to voice calling, activities such as texting while driving, web browsing, playing video games, or phone use in general may also increase the risk of a crash.
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine. Under the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden. In addition to their law-enforcement duties, the police must engage in what the court has termed a community caretaking role, including such duties as removing obstructions from roadways to ensure the free flow of traffic. When the police act in this role, they may inventory cars they have seized without "unreasonably" searching those cars.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulated English contract law and UK commercial law in respect of goods that are sold and bought. The Act consolidated the original Sale of Goods Act 1893 and subsequent legislation, which in turn had codified and consolidated the law. Since 1979, there have been numerous minor statutory amendments and additions to the 1979 act. It was replaced for some aspects of consumer contracts from 1 October 2015 by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but remains the primary legislation underpinning business-to-business transactions involving selling or buying goods.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Attribution of liability to United Kingdom companies involves the rules of contract, agency, capacity, tort and crime as they relate to UK company law. They establish under what circumstances a company may be sued for the actions of its directors, employees and other agents.
Rayneon Ltd v Fraser [1940] 1 NZLR 825 is a case often cited in New Zealand regarding the concept of frustration of purpose.
Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo [2002] 3 NZLR 258 is a New Zealand case regarding the legality of contracts created to prevent a prosecution, which unlike the earlier similar precedents of Mall Finance v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685 and Barsdell v Kerr [1979] 2 NZLR 731, in this case however, although the contract was clearly illegal, relief was granted to the creditor.
Barsdell v Kerr [1979] 2 NZLR 731 is New Zealand case frequently cited with Mall Finance v Slater [1976] 2 NZLR 685 and Polymer Developments v Tilialo [2002] 3 NZLR 258 regarding illegal contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice under the Illegal Contracts Act [1970].
The Illegal Contracts Act [1970] is a New Zealand law that manages how contracts are deemed illegal under either common law or under Statute.
Ross v Henderson [1977] 2 NZLR 458 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding illegal contracts that were later upheld that the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 had the power to validate despite the fact that another legal enactment "deemed to be unlawful and shall have no effect".
Fenton v Scotty's Car Sales Ltd [1968] NZLR 929 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legality of illegal contracts that pre date the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.
National Westminster Finance NZ Ltd v South Pacific Rent-a-Car Ltd [1985] 1 NZLR 646 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the validation of illegal contracts under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.
Catley v Herbert [1988] 1 NZLR 606 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.
Footnote: This ruling followed the earlier similar warrant of fitness case of Fenton v Scotty's Car Sales Ltd [1968] NZLR 929, which pre-dated the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.