| Pendergrast v Chapman | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Graeme Ross Pendergrast v Paul Percy Chapman |
| Decided | 8 December 1987 |
| Citation(s) | [1988] 2 NZLR 177 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Wylie J |
Pendergrast v Chapman [1988] 2 NZLR 177 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the consequences of cancellation of a contract under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979. [1] [2]
Chapman agreed to purchase the Pendergrast's Epsom property for NZ$650,000, NZ$40,000 of the deposit to be paid via a post-dated cheque.
The post dated cheque later dishonoured, and as a result, Pendergrast cancelled the contract and sued Chapman for the NZ$40,000 unpaid deposit. Chapman defended the claim that under the section 8(3) of the Contractual Remedies Act, once a contract is cancelled, neither party is obliged to perform the contract any further.
The court ruled that the Act only stopped future obligations, not obligations that had already fallen due, such as the deposit here. Chapman was ruled liable to pay the deposit.
A cheque or check is a document that orders a bank, building society to pay a specific amount of money from a person's account to the person in whose name the cheque has been issued. The person writing the cheque, known as the drawer, has a transaction banking account where the money is held. The drawer writes various details including the monetary amount, date, and a payee on the cheque, and signs it, ordering their bank, known as the drawee, to pay the amount of money stated to the payee.
A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date, and the activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.
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.
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).
New Zealand Tenancy Bonds Ltd v Mooney [1986] 1 NZLR 280 is an often cited case regarding misrepresentation and whether the misrepresentation was "essential" in order for a party to be able to cancel the contract under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979.
Brown v Langwoods Photo Stores Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 173 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the consequences of cancellation of a contract under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979.
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.
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.
Gallagher v Young [1981] 1 NZLR 734 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.
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.
Garratt v Ikeda [2002] 1 NZLR 577 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a contract is cancelled under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, if the deposit has not been paid, it is still payable, despite section 8(3)(a).
Simanke v Liu (1994) 2 NZ ConvC 191,888 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding cancellation of a contract under the Contractual Remedies Act. It held that any deposit in excess of a customary deposit, in this case 10%, is refundable to the purchaser.
The Contractual Remedies Act 1979 was a statute of the New Zealand Parliament. It provided remedies in respect of misrepresentation, repudiation or breach of contract in New Zealand. It was repealed by the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
Thompson v Vincent [2001] 3 NZLR 355 is a cited case in New Zealand confirming that where a party has cancelled a contract on unjustifiable grounds, can legally cancel the contract if justifiable grounds are later discovered.
Pearson v Wynn (1986) 2 NZCPR 449 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1970 that a breach of contract must be "substantial" for a contract to be cancelled.
Sharplin v Henderson [1990] 2 NZLR 134 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1970 that a breach of a contract must be "substantial" for a contract to be cancelled.
Soccer Nelson Inc v Soccer NZ Inc is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1970 that a breach of a contract must be "substantial" for a contract to be cancelled.
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.
Jack v Guy is cited New Zealand case regarding anticipatory breach of contract.
Noble Investments v Keenan is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the awarding of damages under the Contractual Remedies Act where a contract has been cancelled.