Paul David Barrister New Zealand - outlinecontractpaper

By: Paul David  05-Apr-2012

1. A review of some recent cases from the Commonwealth which largely underline the importance of an objective approach to the determination of the rights and liabilities of contracting parties.

2. The principles relating to the interpretation of contracts - have things settled down?
Potter v Potter [2005] 2 NZLR 1 (PC); [2004] UKPC 41

3. The effect of signing contracts with onerous clauses in them - the objective effect of signature:
Toll (FGCT) Pty Limited v Alphapharm Pty Limited & Ors [2004] HCA 52.

4. The rules of remoteness of damage - easy to state but hard to apply - deciding on the forseeability of types of loss on the basis of the shared knowledge of the parties at the time of contract:
Jackson & Anor v Royal Bank of Scotland Limited [2005] 1 W.L.R. (HL); [2005] UKHL3 

5. Implying a requirement of notice and determining the period of notice by reference to the “common purpose” for the parties of a notice, where the contract makes no provision:
The Rarotongan Resort Hotel Limited v T & W Development Ltd  T/A Snowbird Laundry, Court of Appeal of the Cook Islands, CA 01/2005; CA 02/2005, Williams CJ, Barker, Smellie JJ, 9 February 2006;
Hirequip Holdings Limited v City Hire Centre (1973) Limited, High Court Napier, C!V 2004 - 441-362  Miller J, 30 October 2005

6. The remedy of an account of profits for breach of contract:
Cases considering Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268;
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] FSR 853;

Worldwide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc [2006] EWHC 184 (Ch), Peter Smith J. 

Paul David
Barrister
Eldon Chambers


Contact Paul David

Email - none provided

Print this page

Other news and updates from Paul David

05-Apr-2012

Paul David Barrister New Zealand - news

In Greenmount v Southbourne the New Zealand Supreme Court held that, on its true construction, the exercise of an option to purchase land in a lease required the payment of a deposit, and that this payment had to be either by legal tender or by bank cheque for the option to be validly exercised.