Neylon v Dickens

Last updated

Neylon v Dickens
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case nameKeith James Neylon and Jean Agnes Neylon v Donn Alexander Dickens and Muriel May Dickens
Decided05 October 1979
Citation(s)[1979] UKPC 25
Transcript(s) Court of Appeal judgment Privy Council judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Wilberforce, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Scarman, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Keywords
variation, waiver

Neylon v Dickens [1977] 2 NZLR 35 is an often cited case regarding whether a change to a contract is a waiver or variation. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

The Neylons purchased the Dickens farm, with the sale agreement requiring both parties to get the consent of the High Court within 30 days. Just before the expiry of the 30 days, Neylon's solicitor realized that as his client lived in far away Haast, they would be unable to get the consent in time. Dicken's solicitor agreed to file his clients consent on the basis that the purchasers consent would arrive later, which it did, but after the expiry date.

The vendors claimed that as the expiry date was not met, the sale agreement came to an end. However, the purchasers later obtained an order from the Court of Appeal for specific performance. The Dickens appealed.

Held

The court held that the vendor's solicitor's agreement to file for the consent without first receiving the purchasers consent, was a valid waiver, and so the sale agreement was still a valid agreement.

Related Research Articles

<i>Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd</i>

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.

<i>Frazer v Walker</i>

Frazer v Walker, is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.

<i>Efstratiou v Glantschnig</i>

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.

<i>Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v Viko New Zealand Ltd</i>

The Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v. Viko New Zealand Ltd [1999] 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.

<i>Hart v OConnor</i>

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.

<i>Conlon v Ozolins</i>

Conlon v Ozolins (1984) NZLR 489 is an important New Zealand case involving the legal issues of non est factum and mutual mistake.

<i>Nichols v Jessup</i>

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).

<i>Harding v Coburn</i>

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".

<i>Powierza v Daley</i>

Powierza v Daley [1985] 1 NZLR 558 is an important New Zealand case involving where an inquiry about an offer, is just that, or whether instead it is a counteroffer. The legal distinction between the two is important, as an "inquiry" still leaves the original offer live, whereas a "counteroffer" cancels the previous offer.

<i>Field v Fitton</i>

Field v Fitton [1988] 1 NZLR 482 is a cited New Zealand case regarding privity of contract.

<i>Provost Developments Ltd v Collingwood Towers Ltd</i>

Provost Developments Ltd v Collingwood Towers Ltd [1980] 2 NZLR 205 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding "subject to solicitor's approval" clauses in conditional contracts.

<i>Chatfield v Jones</i>

Chatfield v Jones [1990] 3 NZLR 285 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the issue of notice of cancellation of a contract, where a contract has been breached.

<i>Worsdale v Polglase</i>

Worsdale v Polglase [1981] 1 NZLR 722 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding relief under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 where a contract is repudiated by one of the parties.

<i>Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere</i>

Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere [1980] 1 NZLR 560 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the objective approach to contract formation.

<i>Moreton v Montrose Ltd (in liq)</i>

Moreton v Montrose Ltd [1986] 2 NZLR 496 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a condition in conditional contract is for the sole benefit of one party, the condition can be unilaterally waived by that party. >

<i>Globe Holdings v Floratos</i>

Globe Holdings v Floratos [1998] 3 NZLR 331 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a condition in conditional contract is for the sole benefit of one party, the condition can be unilaterally waived by that party.

<i>Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corp of New Zealand Ltd</i>

Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd [2002] 2 NZLR 433 regarding certainty in contract formation.

<i>Ross v Henderson</i>

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".

<i>Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises</i>

Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises is a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

References

  1. ↑ Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 108–109. ISBN   0-408-71770-X.
  2. ↑ Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN   0-408-71714-9.
  3. ↑ Burrows, John; Finn, Jeremy; Todd, Stephen (2012). Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN   978-192714-954-6.
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.