Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v Viko New Zealand Ltd

Last updated

Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v. Viko New Zealand Ltd
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court New Zealand Court of Appeal
Decided22 October 1998
Citation(s)[1999] 1 NZLR 395
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gault J, Blanchard J, McGechan J
Keywords
accord and satisfaction

The Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v. Viko New Zealand Ltd [1999] (1 NZLR 395) case was the last of numerous New Zealand cases cited regarding whether or not banking (depositing) a cheque received for part payment was legally accord and satisfaction. In this case, it was the only NZ case not subject to a dispute, that the creditor was successful in being able to claim for the balance from the debtor. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Magnum had supplied Viko with imagining equipment and for reasons not stated, Viko did not pay Magnum, resulting in Magnum taking legal action in the High Court.

Magnum ultimately obtained judgement against Viko for $275,450.95.

Viko unhappy with this ruling, filed an appeal with the court, and soon after wrote the following letter to Magnum's solicitors saying they are confident in winning the appeal, and tendered a cheque for $124,677.18 as a settlement agreement.

"Whilst Viko is confident of its chances of success on appeal, it is clear that both parties face litigation risk. For this reason, Viko is still prepared to resolve this matter on the basis of an agreed settlement. It is prepared to offer Magnum $124,677.18, plus the return of the remaining Imager machines, in full and final settlement of all matters as between the parties. The figure of $124,677.18 is arrived at by adding the costs and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar to half of Magnum's original principal claim. A cheque for $124,677.18 is enclosed with this letter. Presentation of this cheque will constitute acceptance of this offer. Should the offer contained in this facsimile be acceptable to Magnum we look forward o confirmation of that."

Unbelievably, Magnum's solicitors not only banked the cheque in error, but also posted to Viko's lawyers a receipt which they received the following day.

Magnum's lawyers realised the mistake the following day, and contacted Viko's lawyers to notify them of the error, offering to immediately refund the cheque, and even go as far as suggest they cancel the cheque.

"We refer to your letter of 2 December 1997 which was accompanied by a cheque for $124,677.18. As advised to you in our telephone conversation (Bagio/Kelly) we were to obtain instructions from our client in relation to your settlement offer. We attempted to fax your letter to our client but were unable to complete a transmission. Our client has not yet even seen the terms of your letter.

Unfortunately, due in administrative error your cheque was mistakenly banked. We are prepared to forward to you immediately our trust account cheque for the same amount. You may wish to put a stop on the cheque which has been presented. We are currently holding the funds in our trust account on trust for your client and seek your advice as to whether you require the funds to be placed on interest bearing deposit.

The employee involved, who acted without instructions, is prepared to swear an affidavit which will verify this information. Please advise if this affidavit will be required by you. The banking of the cheque was therefore an administrative error which cannot be deemed to be acceptance of your client's offer.

Please contact us urgently with regard to this matter."

Whilst Viko's lawyers recall receiving the receipt that day, by the time Magnum contacted them later that day, they said they had not read it to realise it was a receipt.

Held

The New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled that there was no accord and satisfaction, and accordingly ordered Viko to pay the balance. Whilst Magnum won the case, they were awarded costs of only $5,000, as the grounds for appeal was the result of Magnum's mistake. Also Magnum's previous costs award in the High Court was vacated.

Related Research Articles

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Westlaw</span> Online legal research service

Westlaw is an online legal research service and proprietary database for lawyers and legal professionals available in over 60 countries. Information resources on Westlaw include more than 40,000 databases of case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources.

LexisNexis is a part of the RELX corporation that sells data analytics products and various databases that are accessed through online portals, including portals for computer-assisted legal research (CALR), newspaper search, and consumer information. During the 1970s, LexisNexis began to make legal and journalistic documents more accessible electronically. As of 2006, the company had the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records–related information.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

<i>R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd, of 1981 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the law of tendering for contracts. The case concerned the issue of whether the acceptance of a call for tenders for a construction job could constitute a binding contract. The Court held that indeed in many cases the submission of an offer in response to a call for tenders constitutes a contract separate from the eventual contract for the construction. With the release of the decision, the tendering process practiced in Canada was fundamentally changed.

Shepard's Citations is a citator used in United States legal research that provides a list of all the authorities citing a particular case, statute, or other legal authority. The verb Shepardizing refers to the process of consulting Shepard's to see if a case has been overturned, reaffirmed, questioned, or cited by later cases. Prior to the development of electronic citators like Westlaw's KeyCite during the 1990s, Shepard's was the only legal citation service that attempted to provide comprehensive coverage of U.S. law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weil, Gotshal & Manges</span> American law firm

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is an American international law firm with approximately 1,100 attorneys, headquartered in New York City. With a gross annual revenue in excess of $1.8 billion, it is among the world's largest law firms according to The American Lawyer's AmLaw 100 survey.

In English law, a costs lawyer is a legal professional concerned with legal costs who has attained rights of audience and rights to conduct costs litigation.

Law360 is a subscription-based, legal news service based in New York City. It is operated by Portfolio Media, Inc., a subsidiary of LexisNexis and delivers breaking news and analysis to more than 2 million U.S. legal professionals across 60 practice areas, industries and topics, including a free section dedicated to Access to Justice, which reports on "access of individuals and disadvantaged populations to adequate, equitable, and essential criminal and civil justice systems as well as the noteworthy initiatives and individuals who promote such a cause."

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

<i>HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton</i>

HBF Dalgety Ltd v Morton [1987] 1 NZLR 411 is a leading case in New Zealand regarding accord and satisfaction; it reinforces the English case of Foakes v Beer in New Zealand.

<i>Haines House Haulage Co Ltd v Gamble</i>

Haines House Haulage Co Ltd v Gamble [1989] 3 NZLR 221 is an often cited case in New Zealand, where a creditor banked a cheque tendered as "full and final settlement" of an account and was later unsuccessful at claiming the balance from the debtor. Its legal significance is that where a creditor banks a debtors cheque for a lesser amount and wants to still claim the balance from the debtor, they must notify the debtor within 10 days that the banked cheque was not accepted as full settlement.

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group, was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement. However, it was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective" whose business model "relie[d] on deception", and which resembled most closely a conspiracy and racketeering enterprise, referring in the judgment to RICO, the U.S. Federal anti-racketeering law. The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling although onlookers described Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement. In 2014, the ABA Journal described the "Prenda Law saga" as having entered "legal folklore".

<i>Dunrae Manufacturing Ltd v CL North & Co Ltd</i>

Dunrae Manufacturing Ltd v CL North & Co Ltd [[1988] 2 NZLR 602] is a prominent case regarding accord and satisfaction and its application in New Zealand.

<i>Homeguard Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd</i>

Homeguard Products Ltd v Kiwi Packaging Ltd [1981] 2 NZLR 322 was a case of the High Court of New Zealand, regarding whether the banking of cheques tendered as full settlement of disputed accounts. The High Court ruled that by banking the debtor's cheque, Kiwi Packaging consented to the terms attached to the cheque.

<i>Gartside v Sheffield</i>

Gartside v Sheffield [1983] NZLR 37 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability for negligence cases against lawyers

<i>Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd</i> New Zealand law case

Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd [1989] 3 NZLR 549 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding mutual mistake.

<i>Starlight Enterprises Ltd v Lapco Enterprises Ltd</i>

Starlight Enterprises Ltd v Lapco Enterprises Ltd [1979] 2 NZLR 744 is a cited case in New Zealand law regarding repudiation.

<i>Cullinane v McGuigan</i>

Cullinane v McGuigan is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 that a breach of contract must be "substantial" for a contract to be cancelled, and that "substantial" was not limited to a comparison of monetary values.

<i>Frost & Sutcliffe v Tuiara</i>

Frost & Sutcliffe v Tuiara [2004] 1 NZLR 782; (2003) 10 TCLR 912 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a party owes another party concurrent duties in contract and in tort.

References

  1. ↑ Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 57–58. ISBN   0-408-71770-X.
  2. ↑ Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN   0-408-71714-9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.