Thompson v Vincent

Last updated

Thompson v Vincent
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameThompson v Vincent
Decided21 June 2001
Citation(s)[2001] 3 NZLR 355
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMcGrath, Ellis and McGechan JJ

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. [1]

Contents

Background

The Thompsons were developing a 22-24 unit motel complex. Prior to construction, the Vincents entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the motel, giving them a 20-year lease for $500,000.

Within two years of ownership, the Vincents abandoned the motel and their lease.

Soon after the abandonment, the Vincents discovered that the vendors only had planning consent for only 12 units, and not 24. They then used this as a basis for a claim for misrepresentation, in an effort to get their money back under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979.

Held

The court awarded them $320,000 in damages for the misrepresentation.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thompson submachine gun</span> American submachine gun

The Thompson submachine gun is a blowback-operated, selective-fire submachine gun, invented by United States Army brigadier general John T. Thompson in 1918. It was originally designed to break the stalemate of trench warfare of World War I, but was not finished until after the war ended.

Annulment is a legal procedure within secular and religious legal systems for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place. In legal terminology, an annulment makes a void marriage or a voidable marriage null.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mount Cook Village</span> Town in New Zealand

Mount Cook Village, officially Aoraki / Mount Cook, is located within New Zealand's Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park at the end of State Highway 80, only 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) south of the summit of the country's highest mountain, also called Aoraki / Mount Cook, in the Southern Alps.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misrepresentation</span> Untrue statement in contract negotiations

In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cricket in New Zealand</span>

Cricket is the most popular summer sport in New Zealand, second only in total sporting popularity to rugby. New Zealand is one of the twelve countries that take part in Test match cricket.

<i>Bisset v Wilkinson</i>

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 is a leading contract law case from New Zealand on the issue of misrepresentation. The case establishes that a mere misstatement of opinion given fairly cannot amount to a misrepresentation.

<i>Gordon v Selico</i>

Gordon v Selico (1986) 18 H.L.R. 219 is an English contract law on the subject of misrepresentation by action. It was held that positive actions - in this case, the concealment of dry rot - could amount to operative misrepresentations.

Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.

<i>Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd</i>

Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd [2000] EWHC 221 (Comm) is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.

<i>Wakelin v R H & E A Jackson Ltd</i>

Wakelin v R H & E A Jackson LTD (1984) 2 NZCPR 195 is an often cited case of the High Court of New Zealand regarding misstatements. The judgement ruled that merely being silent on an important fact can be construed as a misstatement in itself.

<i>Young v Hunt</i>

Young v Hunt [1984] 2 NZLR 80 is a case that establishes in New Zealand case law that a contract can not simply be cancelled due to misrepresentation, unless that misrepresentation was a breach of an "essential" term of the contract.

<i>Gallagher v Young</i>

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.

<i>M E Torbett Ltd v Keirlor Motels Ltd</i>

M E Torbett Ltd v Keirlor Motels Ltd 1 NZBLC 102,079 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding fraud being a factor in determining whether an exclusion clause is enforceable under the Contractual Remedies Act [1979].

<i>Jolly v Palmer</i>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contractual Remedies Act 1979</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

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.

<i>Mercurius Ventures Ltd v Waitakere City Council</i>

Mercurius Ventures Ltd v Waitakere City Council [1996] 2 NZLR 495 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding whether a contract illegal under law, can be subsequently validated under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970.

<i>Solle v Butcher</i>

Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said,

... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.

<i>Pearson v Wynn</i>

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.

<i>Sharplin v Henderson</i> Ñew Zealand law case 1990

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African Class Afro 4000</span>

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Class Afro 4000 of 2014 is a South African diesel-electric locomotive.

References

  1. Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. pp. 404–405. ISBN   0-86472-555-8.