| Walsh v Kerr | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Walsh v Kerr |
| Decided | 7 June 1989 |
| Citation(s) | [1989] 1 NZLR 490 |
| Transcript(s) | High Court judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Cooke P, Somers J, Hardie Boys J |
Walsh v Kerr [1989] 1 NZLR 490 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the remedy of damages for breach of contract. [1] [2]
The Kerrs owned a student pub in Dunedin, advertising that the lease of the hotel was guaranteed by Wilson Neil Corporation.
The Walshes subsequently purchased the hotel for $1.1 million. Subsequent to the sale, the Walshes discovered that the guarantee would lapse upon any sale.
The Walshes sued the Kerrs for loss of value of the hotel, but the High Court ruled that they had suffered no loss refusing to award any damages, apart for the sum of $10 for nominal damages.
The Court of Appeal ruled that they had suffered loss, and awarded them damages of $5,000.
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
Liquidated damages, also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach. This is most applicable where the damages are intangible.
Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".
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.
Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited [1980] 2 NZLR 314 is an often cited case regarding the temporary forbearance of taking legal action on enforcing a debt as being consideration to enter into a new contract with the creditor. It reinforces the English case of Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR 5 QB 449.
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.
DHL International (NZ) Ltd v Richmond Ltd [1993] 3 NZLR 10 is a leading case in New Zealand case law allowing exclusion of liability clauses even for fundamental breach. It effectively incorporates the English case of Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 into New Zealand case law.
SGS Ltd v Quirke Export Ltd [1988] 1 NZLR 52 CA is a leading case in New Zealand regarding limitation clauses contained in contracts.
Burbery Mortgage Finance & Savings Ltd v Hindsbank Holdings Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 356 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding promissory estoppel, and the ground that their needs to be a pre existing legal relationship before this doctrine applies. This case also is notable that it extends legal relationships to include creditors to the same entity.
Pratt Contractors Ltd v Palmerston North City Council [1995] 1 NZLR 469 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding contract formation involving tenders.
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.
Boulder Consolidated Ltd v Tangaere [1980] 1 NZLR 560 is a cited court case in New Zealand regarding the objective approach to contract formation.
Shotter v Westpac Banking Corp [1988] 2 NZLR 316 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the definition of what is a mistake under the Contractual Mistakes Act.
Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd [1989] 3 NZLR 549 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding mutual mistake.
Ware v Johnson [1984] 2 NZLR 518 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where both parties entering into a contract make the same mistake when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.
Jetz International Ltd v Orams Marine Ltd [1999] DCR 831 is a cited case in New Zealand confirming that the consumer protections under the Consumer Guarantees Act cover consumer goods owned even if they are owned by a limited liability company, as long as they are used for consumer purposes.
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.
Markholm Construction Co Ltd v Wellington City Council [1985] 2 NZLR 520 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding contract formation.
Gregory v Rangitikei [1995] 2 NZLR 208, (1994) 6 TCLR 199 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the sale of property by tender, confirming that an offer inviting tenders to be submitted for the purchase of something did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance to sell that property, but instead merely amounted to an invitation to treat. It reinforces the English case of Spencer v Harding (1870) LR 5 CP 561. However the Court also ruled that there was a breach of the Fair Trading Act (1986).
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |