| Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Landzeal Group Limited v Simon Bernard Kyne (First Defendant) & Gary Moynan (Second Defendant) |
| Decided | 16 March 1990 |
| Citation(s) | [1990] 3 NZLR 574 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gallen J |
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. [1]
Landzeal was a business that did vehicle graphics, and employed Simon Kyne and Gary Moynan. Kyne and Moynan later left Landzeal, and Landzeal filed for restraint of trade injunctions against both of them.
Kyne filed to have the interim injunction to be rescinded on the grounds that the restraint of trade clause that Landzeal produced to the court as evidence to support an injunction, Kyne claimed was not part of the original contract he signed. It turned out that Kyne was first given the original contract to sign, it was missing the page regarding the pay rates. Landzeal, then provided a new copy of the contract with the pay schedule, which Kyne then signed. However, this version of the contract also had added a restraint of trade clause.
Kyne pleaded that as this clause was secretly included in the revised second copy of the contract, that it was not legally enforceable under non est factum.
In Moynans case, whom had a restraint of trade clause in his contract, instead claimed the restraint of trade of 12 months was unreasonable.
The High Court ruled that Kyne's plea of non est factum was successful, making restraint of trade unenforceable.
Moynan however was not so lucky, with the court ruling a restraint of trade enforceable, although the time period was reduced to only 6 months.
Footnote: This case was subsequently followed in Chiswick Investments v Pevats [1990] 1 NZLR 169
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.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.
In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. In the labor market, these agreements prevent workers from freely moving across employers, and weaken the bargaining leverage of workers.
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.
Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.
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.
In 2008, Mark Papermaster, IBM's Vice President of the Blade Development Unit, became the subject of a notable trade secret misappropriation and non-compete clause case when he announced a plan to move to Apple as Senior Vice President of Devices Hardware Engineering. On October 22, 2008, IBM filed a complaint against Papermaster claiming breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Papermaster from working at Apple, claiming his employment violated non-competition agreement.
This collection of lists of law topics collects the names of topics related to law. Everything related to law, even quite remotely, should be included on the alphabetical list, and on the appropriate topic lists. All links on topical lists should also appear in the main alphabetical listing. The process of creating lists is ongoing – these lists are neither complete nor up-to-date – if you see an article that should be listed but is not, please update the lists accordingly. You may also want to include Wikiproject Law talk page banners on the relevant pages.
Grey Advertising Ltd v Marinkovich [AEC 70A/99] is an important case in New Zealand regarding the admissibility to court as evidence correspondence marked "without prejudice". It is now referred to in legal circles as the "Grey Rules".
Conlon v Ozolins (1984) NZLR 489 is an important New Zealand case involving the legal issues of non est factum and mutual mistake.
Rayneon Ltd v Fraser [1940] 1 NZLR 825 is a case often cited in New Zealand regarding the concept of frustration of purpose.
General Finance Acceptance Ltd v Melrose [1988] 1 NZLR 465 is an often cited case regarding whether a contract term for calculating damages in the future are what is called liquidated damages, or is otherwise deemed a penalty clause, which the courts do not uphold as legally enforceable.
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.
Shivas v Bank of New Zealand [1990] 2 NZLR 327 is an important case in New Zealand regarding duress.
Brown v Brown [1980] 1 NZLR 484 is a frequently cited case involving the modifying of restraint of trade clauses.
Chiswick Investments v Pevats [1990] 1 NZLR 169 is a cited New Zealand case regarding mistake.
Jenkins v NZI Finance Ltd (1991) 3 NZBLC 102,198 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding that the common law remedy of non est factum for a contract is not available simply because a party was careless in signing a contract without first properly reading it.
H & R Block Ltd v Sanott [1976] 1 NZLR 213 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the legality of restraint of trade clauses under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.
Part performance is an equitable doctrine in New Zealand law.
Fletcher Aluminium Ltd v O'Sullivan [2001] 2 NZLR 731 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding that a restrictive covenant in a business sale may be enforceable even if there is no goodwill involved.
