 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(November 2014) |
| Contractors Bonding v Snee | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Contractors Bonding v Snee |
| Decided | 6 November 1991 |
| Citation(s) | [1992] 2 NZLR 157 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Richardson J, Gault J, McKay J |
| Keywords | |
| undue influence | |
Contractors Bonding v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 is a leading New Zealand case regarding undue influence. [1] [2]
Snee's son, Mr Savage, purchased a travel agency. In order to be a travel agent, it needed to pay a bond of $50,000 to the Travel Agents Association. To satisfy this requirement, they arranged for Contractors Bonding to issue the bond, but they required suitable security before this bond was given.
To satisfy this requirement, Savage approached his mother, convincing her to guarantee this bond, supported by a mortgage over her house. She gave this guarantee, despite the fact her lawyer had advised her not once, but twice, to not give the guarantee.
Savage received her guarantee documents from his lawyers, and took them to his mother to sign.
Two years later, after customer funds disappeared, resulting in Contractors Bonding seeking reimbursement of the bond from Mrs Snee, and started mortgagee proceedings against her house, although she managed to obtain an injunction from the High Court to stop this, pleading duress, undue influence, and unconscionable bargain, as amongst other things, it was held that she suffered a significant mental impairment due to her alcoholism.
Contractors Bonding appealed.
The Court ruled that whilst Savage exercised undue influence over his mother, however as Savage was not acting as the agent of Contractors Bonding, no undue influence could be imputed against them. Accordingly, the guarantee and the mortgage were both ruled to be legally enforceable against Mrs Snee.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
Undue influence (UI) is a psychological process by which a person's free will and judgement is supplanted by that of another. It is a legal term and the strict definition varies by jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is a means by which a person gains control over their victims' decision making through manipulation tactics and unfair pressure, typically for financial gain. Historically, UI has been poorly understood, even in some legal circles.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.
Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien[1993] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence. It set out the basic categories of undue influence as,
Efstratiou v Glantschnig (1972) is an often cited New Zealand case to the limits of indefeasibility of title to land ownership, where in this case, the purchaser of the land was aware of the title fraud at the time of the purchase of the property.
Hart v O'Connor [1985] UKPC 1 is an important case in New Zealand, also relevant for English contract law, regarding mental capacity to enter into contract as well as regarding unconscionable bargains, which made it as far as the Privy Council.
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.
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.
Finch Motors Ltd v Quin [1980] 2 NZLR 519 is an important case regarding "merchantable quality" under the Sale of Goods Act 1908 and the Consumer Guarantees Act (1993).
Shivas v Bank of New Zealand [1990] 2 NZLR 327 is an important case in New Zealand regarding duress.
Chiswick Investments v Pevats [1990] 1 NZLR 169 is a cited New Zealand case regarding mistake.
Mouat v Clark Boyce [1992] 2 NZLR 559 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the award of damages for breach of contract.
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.
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.
National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan[1985] UKHL 2 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords relating to English contract law and the doctrine of undue influence. The case is most well known for the comments of Lord Scarman about the supposed requirement of "manifest disadvantage" to set aside a contract for undue influence.
Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction cannot "fairly be treated the expression of [that person's] free will".
CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt[1993] UKHL 7 is a decision of the House of Lords relating to undue influence. The decision confirmed that a person did not need to suffer "manifest disadvantage" under a transaction in order to challenge it for actual undue influence.
Bank of Montreal v Stuart is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the principle of undue influence in relation to contracts, in the particular context of dealings between spouses. Decided in 1910, the case continues to be cited in the courts in Canada and in England and Wales.