| Chiswick Investments v Pevats | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Chiswick Investments v Mark John Pevats |
| Decided | 2 August 1989 |
| Citation(s) | [1990] 1 NZLR 169 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gallen J |
Chiswick Investments v Pevats [1990] 1 NZLR 169 is a cited New Zealand case regarding mistake. [1] [2] [3]
Pevats, an external accountant, was the company secretary and nominal shareholder (1 share) in a company called Topp Engineering Limited. One day, the director of the company, Mr Allan Hebdon visited his firms accountancy firm, asking him to witness a loan agreement between the company and the Development Finance Corporation.
Pevats applied the company seal and signed as a witness of the seal.
At this stage, Pevats informed Hebdon, that he was signing merely as a witness, and in no way was he agreeing to give a personal guarantee for the loan. Pevat also signed in the shareholder section.
It was later discovered there was a personal guarantee in the loan contract, which was rather unfortunate for Pevast, as the company defaulted on the loan, and Chiswick Investments, whom had been assigned the loan from the DFC, sued Pevat personally for repayment of the loan under the shareholder guarantee.
Pevats pleaded mistake and non est factum.
In a seemingly conflicting ruling, the Court ruled that there was no unilateral mistake here, so the personal guarantee was deemed legally enforceable against Pevats. However, it held that Pevats was not negligent in signing the loan agreement, as he innocently thought he was merely witnessing the company seal, making his plea of Non Est Factum successful here.
Non est factum is a defence in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign". A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio.
Dundee Farm Ltd. v. Bambury Holdings Ltd. (1978) is a case involving the sale of a farm in Bombay, South Auckland and is notable as it is often cited in New Zealand on issues of mistake, and reinforces the English case of Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86 into NZ case law.
Conlon v Ozolins (1984) NZLR 489 is an important New Zealand case involving the legal issues of non est factum and mutual mistake.
National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v Ram [1992] 4 NZBLC 102,619 is a New Zealand case that covers the grey area of the legal capacity of minors when they are between 18 and 20 years old.
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.
Nichols v Jessup [1986] 1 NZLR 226, is a New Zealand case regarding unconscionable bargains, and it set the threshold for an unconscionable bargain is that the stronger party did not have to have actual knowledge of the other party having a disability, but merely that the stronger party should have had suspicions that the other party had a disability.
Wakelin v R H & E A Jackson LTD (1984) 2 NZCPR 195 is an often cited case of the High Court of New Zealand regarding misstatements. The judgement ruled that merely being silent on an important fact can be construed as a misstatement in itself.
Neylon v Dickens [1977] 2 NZLR 35 is an often cited case regarding whether a change to a contract is a waiver or variation.
Contractors Bonding v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 is a leading New Zealand case regarding undue influence.
Money v Ven-Lu-Ree Ltd [1988] 2 NZLR 414, aff'd [1989] 3 NZLR 129 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the issue of certainty in contract formation.
Burch v Willoughby Consultants Ltd (1990) 3 NZELC 97,582 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the remedy of damages for mental distress under the Contractual Remedies Act (1979) for breach of contract.
Mouat v Clark Boyce [1992] 2 NZLR 559 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the award of damages for breach of contract.
Tri-Star Customs and Forwarding Ltd v Denning [1999] 1 NZLR 33 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding unilateral mistakes under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.
Slater Wilmhurst Ltd v Crown Group Custodian Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 344 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding common mistake.
Shotter v Westpac Banking Corp [1988] 2 NZLR 316 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the definition of what is a mistake under the Contractual Mistakes Act.
Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd [1989] 3 NZLR 549 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding mutual mistake.
Ware v Johnson [1984] 2 NZLR 518 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where both parties entering into a contract make the same mistake when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.
Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne [1990] 3 NZLR 574 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the enforceability of employment restraint of trade contracts as well as the plea of non est factum.
Jolly v Palmer [1985] 1 NZLR 658 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legal enforceability of a contract where there is a breach of a stipulation.
Fleming v Beevers [1994] 1 NZLR 385 is a cited case in New Zealand law regarding the doctrine of part performance.