| Barsdell v Kerr | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Barsdell v Kerr |
| Decided | 1979 |
| Citation(s) | [1979] 2 NZLR 731 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Quilliam J |
| Keywords | |
| illegal contracts | |
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]. [1] [2]
Barsdell ran a dental practice, and employed Mr Barker as a dental technician there. When Barsdell later discovered that this employee had sexually assaulted some of his female patients there whilst they were under anaesthesia, Barsdell procured the victims silence through making payments of compensation to the victims husbands totaling $20,000. In return, Barker had given Barsdell a promissory note to reimburse him for these payments, stating "For valuable consideration received, I agree to pay the sum of twenty thousand dollars($20,000)to my very old friend and employer GLH Barsdell", and had used Mr Kerr, a solicitor, who was a visiting client, to witness the deed of gift. Barker at the same time changed his will, adding the provision to leave Barsdell $20,000 from his estate.
However, Barker soon had a change of mind about paying the $20,000, and removed Barsdell from his will. An event which was rather untimely, as Barker soon died after this. To further complicate matters, Barsdell soon died as well, leaving his widow (and executrix of his estate) to try and collect on the note from Barkers estate, whom Kerr was named as the executor.
Kerr refused to honour the note, as by now he had discovered the true nature of the transaction, claiming as it was contrary to public policy, thus legally unenforceable.
Barsdell sought validation in the court for validation under the Illegal Contracts Act [1970]
Validation for the promissory note was refused, as the consideration for the promissory note was illegal. Quilliam J said "I am satisfied, however, that this is not the kind of situation which the [Illegal Contracts] Act was intended to cover... I consider wrong in principle to apply the Act in such a case"
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.
In terms of Nonnegotiable and negotiable instruments, a negotiable instrument is a document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money, either on demand, or at a set time, whose payer is usually named on the document. More specifically, it is a document contemplated by or consisting of a contract, which promises the payment of money without condition, which may be paid either on demand or at a future date. The term has different meanings depending on the use of the term as it is used in the application of different laws, and depending in which country and context it is used.
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.
Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.
An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.
Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 is a famous English contract law case on promissory estoppel. An ex-wife tried to take advantage of the principle that had been reintroduced in the High Trees case to enforce her husband's promise to give her maintenance. The Court held that promissory estoppel could not be applied. It was available only as a defence and not as a cause of action.
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.
Rayneon Ltd v Fraser [1940] 1 NZLR 825 is a case often cited in New Zealand regarding the concept of frustration of purpose.
Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited [1980] 2 NZLR 314 is an often cited case regarding the temporary forbearance of taking legal action on enforcing a debt as being consideration to enter into a new contract with the creditor. It reinforces the English case of Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR 5 QB 449.
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.
Harding v Coburn [1976] 2 NZLR 577 was a New Zealand case that was one of the first that 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".
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".
Lower Hutt City Council v Martin [1987] 1 NZLR 321 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the validation of contracts under 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.
NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd [1992] 3 NZLR 528 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated 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.
Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd [1999] 2 NZLR 559 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under statute, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.
Duncan v McDonald [1997] 3 NZLR 669 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the granting of relief under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 for illegal contracts.
Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others is one of New Zealand's leading constitutional law decisions. Heard in the Supreme Court in 1976, the decision considered whether press statements by the Prime Minister Robert Muldoon had breached section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688, "That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal".
Harvey Corporation Ltd v Barker [2002] 2 NZLR 213 is a cited case regarding relief for misrepresentation under the Fair Trading Act 1986.